Table of Contents
THE CONTEXT: The recent surge in violence in Manipur has reignited debates about Centre-State relations and the application of emergency provisions in India. These provisions, embedded in the Indian Constitution, are crucial for maintaining order and protecting states from internal disturbances while ensuring that federal principles are not compromised.
EVOLUTION OF THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 355 TO PRESENT TIMES:
- Initial Narrow Interpretation: Article 355 was a declaratory duty without conferring specific powers. Early cases, like the State of Rajasthan vs. the Union of India (1977), emphasized minimal Union interference.
- Expansion of Scope: The Naga People’s Movement case (1998) and the Sarbananda Sonowal case (2005) expanded the understanding of ‘internal disturbance’ and ‘external aggression.’ Recognized the Union’s proactive role in addressing threats to State governance.
- Judicial Oversight: The R. Bommai case (1994) underscored judicial review over the Union’s actions, ensuring that Article 355 is not misused to justify the unwarranted imposition of the President’s Rule.
- Current Understanding: Article 355 imposes a duty on the Union to Protect States against external and internal threats. The Union must ensure constitutional governance in States and take necessary actions, including legislative measures, to fulfill this duty. The Union can act even without State consent in certain circumstances, but such actions are subject to judicial scrutiny to prevent misuse.
THE ISSUES:
- Renewed Violence in Manipur and Its Implications: The recent escalation of violence in Manipur has reignited discussions about the role of the central government in State affairs, particularly concerning the maintenance of law and order. The severity of the situation—including attacks on civilians, looting of ammunition, and use of heavy weaponry—raises questions about the adequacy of the State government’s response.
- Federal Structure and Distribution of Powers: India’s federal system divides powers between the Centre and the States, with the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution outlining this distribution. Law and order are primarily the responsibility of State governments, highlighting the challenges when a State struggles to manage internal disturbances.
- Emergency Provisions: Article 355 imposes a duty on the Centre to protect States from external aggression and internal disturbances and to ensure that State governance adheres to the Constitution. Article 356 allows the Centre to impose the President’s Rule if a state government cannot function according to constitutional provisions. The conditions under which these provisions should be invoked and the balance between intervention and State autonomy is a bone of contention.
- Historical Misuse of Article 356: In the past, Article 356 has been misused to dismiss democratically elected State governments for political reasons, such as after losing national elections or due to alleged law and order issues. The Supreme Court’s S.R. Bommai case (1994) curtailed this misuse by stipulating that the President’s Rule should only be imposed in cases of a breakdown of constitutional machinery, not merely due to law and order problems.
- Expanded Interpretation of Article 355: Subsequent Supreme Court rulings have broadened the scope of Article 355, allowing the Centre to take necessary constitutional and statutory actions to protect States without immediately resorting to Article 356. Cases like Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India (1998) have permitted greater Central involvement under Article 355.
- Grave Situation Versus Ordinary Law and Order Breakdown: The magnitude of violence in Manipur suggests a situation beyond ordinary law and order, potentially indicating a breakdown of constitutional machinery. This raises the question of whether the Centre should consider invoking Article 356 or intensifying actions under Article 355.
- Political Expediency and Reluctance to Invoke Article 356: Political considerations—specifically, the same party ruling both the Centre and the State—may influence the decision not to impose the President’s Rule. This brings into focus the tension between constitutional obligations and political interests.
- Need for Central Intervention Under Article 355: Emphasizes that, given the gravity of the situation, the Centre should fully exercise its powers under Article 355 to restore order—advocates for all possible measures short of President’s Rule to be implemented promptly to address the crisis.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Coordinated Security Operations: Launch joint operations involving state and central forces to disarm militant groups and recover looted arms. Improve intelligence gathering to prevent violent outbreaks. The Sarkaria Commission (1987) emphasized that Article 355 not only imposes a duty but also grants the Centre the power to take appropriate steps to prevent internal disturbances.
- Formation of Peace Committees: Establish committees comprising representatives from various communities. Involve neutral figures or institutions to facilitate discussions. National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) suggested that dialogue is essential for resolving internal conflicts. For instance, the successful resolution of the Mizo conflict through the Mizoram Peace Accord (1986), where dialogue led to lasting peace.
- Special Investigation Teams (SITs): Set up SITs monitored by the judiciary to investigate incidents of violence. Activate State Human Rights Commissions to address grievances. Ensure all security operations are under judicial scrutiny to prevent human rights violations.
- Legislative Clarity: Enact laws to define “internal disturbance” and “breakdown of constitutional machinery.” Strengthen local administrative bodies to handle crises effectively. Punchhi Commission (2010) emphasized the importance of local governance and decentralization. The Sarkaria Commission (1987) suggested enhancing cooperation between the Centre and the State during internal disturbances.
- Consultative Approach: The Centre should collaborate with the State government rather than unilaterally imposing decisions. Decisions should be made in the interest of the state’s populace, devoid of political considerations. In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977), The Supreme Court held that the Centre should not dismiss a state government based on subjective assessments.
THE CONCLUSION:
The situation in Manipur underscores the delicate balance between constitutional obligations and political realities. While Article 356 remains a measure of last resort, the Centre must exhaust all avenues under Article 355 to restore peace, highlighting the need for judicious use of emergency provisions to uphold democratic values and federal integrity.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:
Q. Explain the legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency with which the Union Governments have used Article 356 since the mid-1990s. 2022
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q. Discuss the role of Articles 355 and 356 in maintaining the federal balance in India. How have judicial interpretations influenced their application?
SOURCE:
Spread the Word