Blog

Context

The recent violence in Manipur has reignited the debate on Centre-State relations and the use of emergency provisions in India. This situation underscores the complexities and challenges inherent in India’s federal structure and the constitutional mechanisms designed to address such crises.

Federal Set-up in India

• Federal Structure: India operates as a federal system with distinct governments at the Centre and the States. This structure is designed to balance power and responsibilities between different levels of government.
• Seventh Schedule: The Indian Constitution’s Seventh Schedule delineates the distribution of powers between the Union and the States through three lists: Union List, State List, and Concurrent List.
  • Union List: Includes subjects of national importance such as defense, foreign affairs, and atomic energy.
  • State List: Covers subjects of local or state importance like police, public health, and agriculture.
  • Concurrent List: Contains subjects of mutual interest to both the Union and States, such as education, marriage, and bankruptcy.
• State Responsibility: Maintaining law and order is primarily the domain of State governments. For instance, the police and public order are state subjects, meaning each state has its own police force and laws governing public order.

Emergency Provisions in the Constitution

• Part XVIII: Emergency provisions are outlined in Part XVIII of the Constitution, providing the framework for dealing with extraordinary situations.
• Article 355: Imposes a duty on the Centre to protect every State from external aggression and internal disturbance. It ensures that State governments operate according to the Constitution.
  • Example: During the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, the Centre invoked Article 355 to assist the state governments in restoring order.
• Article 356: Allows for the imposition of President’s rule if a State’s government cannot function in accordance with constitutional provisions.
  • Example: President’s rule was imposed in Jammu and Kashmir in 2018 after the coalition government collapsed.

Comparison with Other Countries

• United States: The U.S. federal system includes mechanisms for federal intervention in states, but there are no provisions for removing state governments. The Posse Comitatus Act limits the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the states.
  • Example: During Hurricane Katrina in 2005, federal intervention was limited and required state requests for assistance.
• Australia: Similar to the U.S., Australia’s federal system allows for federal intervention to protect states but does not include provisions for dismissing state governments.
  • Example: The Australian government provided extensive support to states during the 2019-2020 bushfire crisis, but state governments remained in control of their respective jurisdictions.

B.R. Ambedkar’s View

• Justification for Article 355: B.R. Ambedkar explained that Article 355 was designed to ensure that any interference by the Centre in a State’s administration under Article 356 is justified and constitutionally mandated.
• Check on Federal Power: This provision serves to prevent arbitrary or unauthorized use of Article 356, maintaining a check on federal power and preserving the federal structure.
  • Example: Ambedkar’s vision was to create a safeguard against potential misuse, ensuring that federal intervention would be a last resort.

Issues and Concerns

• Misuse of Article 356: Despite hopes that Articles 355 and 356 would remain a dead letter, Article 356 has been misused several times to dismiss elected state governments, undermining constitutional principles and federalism.
  • Example: In 1977, the Janata Party government dismissed nine Congress-ruled state governments after coming to power at the Centre.
  • Example: In 1980, Indira Gandhi’s government dismissed nine non-Congress state governments after regaining power.

Judicial Rulings

• S.R. Bommai Case (1994): Restricted the misuse of Article 356, stating it should only be used for constitutional breakdowns, not ordinary law and order issues. The imposition is subject to judicial review.
  • Example: The Supreme Court reinstated the dismissed state governments in Karnataka, Meghalaya, and Nagaland, emphasizing that Article 356 should not be used for political purposes.
• Expansion of Article 355: The Supreme Court has broadened the interpretation of Article 355 over time, allowing the Union to take necessary actions to protect states and ensure constitutional governance.
  • Example: In the Naga People’s Movement case (1998), the Court upheld the Centre’s intervention to protect the state from internal disturbances.

Recommendations by Commissions

• Sarkaria Commission (1987): Recommended that Article 356 should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. It emphasized cooperative federalism and suggested mechanisms for better Centre-State coordination.
• National Commission (2002): Reiterated the need for restraint in using Article 356 and recommended measures to strengthen federal relations.
• Punchhi Commission (2010): Suggested that Article 355 requires the Union to protect states and allows necessary actions to fulfill this duty. It also emphasized that Article 356 should be used only in extreme and urgent situations.
  • Example: The Punchhi Commission recommended setting up a permanent inter-state council to address Centre-State issues proactively.

Conclusion

• Balancing Act: The emergency provisions are essential for maintaining constitutional order, but their impact on Centre-State relations is significant and complex.
• Guiding Principles: Their application must be guided by principles of fairness, necessity, and constitutional integrity.
• Future Outlook: Ensuring judicious use of these provisions within the framework of federal principles is key to preserving the democratic and federal fabric of the nation.

Current Events Connection

• Manipur Violence: The recent violence in Manipur highlights the ongoing challenges in Centre-State relations and the critical role of emergency provisions in addressing internal disturbances. The Centre’s response to the situation in Manipur will be closely watched as a test of the balance between state autonomy and federal intervention