Article 356 = {The President, Governors, Ruling Parties}

​Indian Polity has gone through different remarkable phases post-independence. Tryst with Destiny led to different (and unimaginable!) future than what was envisaged by our forefathers, those who drafted the Constitution, at least when it comes to (mis)use of Article 356. While answering to criticism of “State Emergency” provision, Dr. B R Ambedkar replied, ‘This provision under Article 356 is supposed to be a dead letter. And the president of the time shall take moral responsibility before invoking this provision.’

With only one exception of using Article 356 on Kerala (to dismiss the democratically elected Communist state government in 1959), the provision was literally dead till for the first decade and a half. 1967 was a watershed year for Indian Polity when nine state assemblies were occupied by non-Congress parties. And there was a shift in Centre-State relations. So far smooth relation due to Single Party dominance was waiting to shift to Confrontational phase. And then suddenly, dormant parking place – Raj Bhavan, was to get much importance. Party loyalists, like today, were appointed to these The non-congress States.

​​

Central Government’s agent, Governor is neither subordinate nor employee nor paid by Central Government. But she/he does submit periodic reports of the President. She/He can recommend President about the imposition of President’s Rule (invoke Article 356) if she/he feels that state machinery is broken (to the ground!). The President can either accept or reject the recommendation made in the Governor’s report.

But here is the catch. Generally (“Always” is apt but not politically correct one!) the Governors appointed by Central Ruling party are either party veteran or affiliated to parties in some other ways. Governor's post is reward of loyalty or good work (?!) done by an appointed person. And in return, they send reports, which are in favor of the ruling party at Centre, proving their loyalty (and political skills, which could not yield much during the election!). Article 74 (1), which clearly shows that the President is just Nominal head of Country, clearly states:

“There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice. (42^nd Amendment of the Constitution, 1977)

Provided that the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice, either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration. (44^th Amendment of the Constitution, 1978)”

And this calls for making some changes in popular (and misnomer) terms like; President’s Rule where the actual decision is taken by Council of Ministers headed by Prime Minister.

Also, post-1969, the President’s office was much politicized. And its reputation drops to the lowest level during the 1980’s when then President Zail Singh once said, “I will sweep the floor of Her house if Madam tells me to do so”. The Presidents occupied the Rashtrapati Bhavan, keeping their conscience away from Raisina Hills. And they danced on the tunes of (rulers!) head of the ruling party at the Centre.

P Venkatasubbaiah, Congress loyalist hailing from Andhra Pradesh, was appointed/placed as Governor of Karnataka. And after the resignation of then CM of Karnataka, Mr. R M Hedge, Mr. S R Bommai became the new CM. Bommai was destined to become immortal due to landmark judgment by the Supreme Court on – SR Bommai versus Union of India, which changed the implementation of Article 356 forever!

The Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines so as to prevent the misuse of Article 356 of the constitution.

1.     The majority enjoyed by the Council of Ministers shall be tested on the floor of the House.

2.    Centre should give a warning to the state and a time period of one week to reply.

3.    The court cannot question the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President but it can question the material behind the satisfaction of the President. Hence, Judicial Review will involve three questions only:

a. Is there any material behind the proclamation

b. Is the material relevant?

c. Was there any mala fide use of power.

4.   If there is improper use of A356 then the court will provide a remedy.

5.    Under Article 356(3) it is the limitation on the powers of the President. Hence, the president shall not take any irreversible action until the proclamation is approved by the Parliament i.e. he shall not dissolve the assembly.

6.   A356 is justified only when there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery and not administrative machinery

Post 1990, President’s office has shifted to activism than mere being instrument in the hands of PMs. Actually, this shift was already started by same Zail Singh, who was not satisfied by Rajiv Gandhi’s inaction post-Delhi Riots - 1984. He became the only President in a parliamentary democracy, where the bill passed by both the houses was not given assent and he didn’t even face impeachment in Parliament– we are talking about much controversial Post Office Bill, 1986.

K R Narayanan set an exemplary tenure for generations of Presidents to follow. He refused to invoke Article 356 twice. The first time, when I K Gujral government wanted to dismiss Kalyan Singh’s government (Uttar Pradesh) and, the second time when Atal Behari’s government wanted to dismiss Rabri Devi’s government (Bihar). Both the time, it was only a political motive, like most of the time.

Central government should think twice before invoking Article 356 because even popular President likes Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam cannot listen to his conscience and refuse aid-and-advice to Council of Ministers headed by Prime Minister! Imposing President’s Rule (read, Toppling)on states with popularly elected Assembly, may impact the Central ruling party in the long run. It might set the tone of “revenge” again, which we have already experienced during the Janata Party rule when many State governments were simply dismissed because they were ruled by Congress. And Congress did the exact opposite when they came back to power in 1979-80. It is high time to work for co-operative federalism off stage as well. It is time to have control over short-term temptation so that long-term goal of matured democracy can be achieved, where even party-men can criticize the party’s own policies (like backbencher of House of Commons!)​