Context:
The recent spate of renewed violence in Manipur has once again triggered the discussion around Centre-State relations and the use of emergency provisions by the Centre.
Background:
- Large-scale violence against innocent civilians, women and children; looting of ammunition from police armoury; drone and missile attacks targeting civilians cannot be viewed as just an ordinary breakdown of law and order.
Key takeaways
- India operates as a federation with governments at both the Centre and State levels. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution distributes powers between them. Maintaining law and order is primarily the responsibility of State governments.
Emergency Provisions:
- The emergency provisions are found in Part XVIII of the Constitution.
- Articles 355 and 356 deal primarily with the affairs of government in a State under this part.
- Article 355 obliges the Centre to protect States from external aggression and internal disturbance and ensure State governments function according to the Constitution.
- Article 356 allows for President’s rule if a State government fails to operate in line with constitutional provisions. While similar federal roles exist in countries like the U.S., they lack provisions to remove State governments.
- R. Ambedkar emphasized that Article 355 ensures the Centre only intervenes under constitutional duty, preventing misuse of Article 356.
Judicial Interpretations:
Ambedkar had hoped that Articles 355 and 356 would remain inactive, but Article 356 has been misused in the past to remove State governments. This changed after the S.R. Bommai case (1994). The court held that Article 356 should be imposed only in the event of a breakdown of constitutional machinery, as distinguished from an ordinary breakdown of law and order. It also held that the imposition of the President’s rule is subject to judicial review and should not be misused for political reasons.
On the other hand, the scope of Article 355 has broadened in cases like Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights (1998) and Sarbananda Sonowal (2005), allowing the Centre more leeway in fulfilling its duty to protect States and ensure constitutional governance.
Commission Recommendations:
Several commissions, including the Sarkaria Commission (1987), National Commission (2002), and Punchhi Commission (2010), recommended that Article 356 be used only as a last resort in serious crises. They emphasized that Article 355 grants the Centre both the duty and power to act as needed to ensure constitutional governance.
Current Relevance (Example of Manipur):
In situations like the Manipur violence, the breakdown of law and order, including civilian attacks and looting of police arms, should not be seen as ordinary unrest. While Article 356 hasn’t been invoked due to political expediency, all actions under Article 355 should be pursued to restore order.
Read Also: Palamau Tiger Reserve
