According to Article 356, President’s
rule can be imposed in a state if a situation arises in which the government of
the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the
Constitution.
Constitutional machinery
The expression “breakdown of
constitutional machinery” has not been defined in the Constitution. It can
result from a hung assembly, the government losing majority in the assembly,
failure of any political grouping to form a government, defections or
insurgency. Whatever may be the reason, the President has to be satisfied about
breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state.
Governor’s report
The governor sends a report to the
Centre and it’s his/her report that forms the basis for the union cabinet’s
recommendation to the President for invoking Article 356 to impose President’s
rule. However, the provision also says that the President can take such a
decision even “otherwise” (that is even in the absence of governor’s report).
Governor’s discretion
While sending a report to the Centre,
the governor is not supposed to go by the advice of the state cabinet and
she/he exercises her/his own discretion. On the contrary, the President has to
go by the advice of the Union cabinet. But he can seek clarifications from the
council of ministers.
Implications
Once President’s rule is imposed, the
assembly ceases to function and the state comes under Centre’s control. The
assembly is kept in suspended animation. The powers of the state assembly
become exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament. The executive power
shifts from the council of ministers to the governor.
Once imposed, President’s rule must
be approved by Parliament in two months. It can’t last for more than six months
unless Parliament approves an extension.
No comments:
Post a Comment