Arunachal Pradesh Under President Rule: Article 356, Gubernatorial Office And Cooperative Federalism

By Tarannum Bano

29 January, 2016
Countercurrents.org

The proclamation of emergency rule in Arunachal Pradesh under article 356, has brought back the issue of the misuse of constitutional provision and gubernatorial offices and aspect of Indian federalism.The President Pranab Mukherjee approved the recommendation of the Union Cabinet to suspend a duly elected government of the congress party headed by Nabam Tuki and impose President Rule in Arunachal Pradesh on 26th January when the country was celebrating 67th anniversary of the implementation of the Constitution and the democratic and republicannature of the country.

This issue becomes more acute and intensive in the context of present scenario, as our Prime minister has been talking about the cooperative federalism.Though, the founders of the Indian constitution were inclined towards a complete federal system, the prevailing conditions of the country made them apprehensive towards a federal system and they showed their faith in a quasi-federal system with strong unitary features. Ambedkar was of the view that for a country, with such a diversity of culture, language and ethnicity a federal system is more suitable. He also expressed his views in constituent assembly debates that article 356 will remain a ‘dead letter’. But the political situation has been different and this article has been most controversial article in centre state relations.

This Article provides for the imposition of the President’s rule when there is ‘failure of constitutional machinery in the state’. The ambiguity of expression if ‘a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provision of the Constitution’ had led to the Article’s persistent misuse by all governments at the Centre.Nearly, after the seven decades of independence Indian federalism has passed through several stages and the relationship between the centre and the states has also been volatile and irresolute.Though, the Constitution attempts to divide the power in a clear cut manner and seeks to reduce the chances of conflicts between the centre and the states, the nature of Indian federalism is not only determined by these provisions.

There are several other institutional arrangements which play a crucial role in determining the shape and direction of Indian federal system such as office of president, governor, judiciary and role of political parties and some other constitutional provisions. Indian constitution does not originally make any specific mention of political parties like the U.S, and diverse and complex nature of Indian federal system is not favourable for the two party system.

In the early years of independence Congress was a single dominant party at centre as well as in almost all the states. Indian federalism working rather smoothly,solving the disputes as inter party conflicts, but the scenario changed after the 1967 elections, when congress lost its control in almost half of the states,and the cases of misuse of article 356 began to emerge.Operation of the multi-party system at the two levels of the government put the provisions of the federalism to test. Initially, the central government presented its positive and cooperative gesture towards these governments, but in practice the congress government did not showed cooperation with these opposition governments. The non congress ministries in Haryana,UP, and West Bengal were dismissed even when they enjoyed a majority in their respective state legislatures.

After independence there has been several disgraced examples of this execrable politics.Specially, in 1977 when the Janata government suspended congress governments in nine states on the ground that these governments had lost legitimacy and faith of the people as was Congress was defeated in general election held after emergency. In 1979, after the disintegration of the Janata government congress backed to the power and suspended the governments installed by the Janata party in the same manner.The political history of the suspension of the government shows that almost all the suspended governments have been from opposition parties holding the governments of the states. Committees formed on centre State relations also signify Article 356 as a core point of tension between centre and the states. The supreme court of India in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, asserted that the power of proclamation under Article 356 must be used with circumspection and in a non partisan manner.

In proclamation of Article 356 the role of governor has also been an issue of debate.At the time of drafting the constitution the matter of selection of the governor was also discussed by the representatives. They made a provision of appointed governor rather than elected one to ignore the problems of overlapping the authority and assure a smooth and amiable functioning of the government of the states. But the cases shows that in the political crisis the role of governor has been as an agent of centre, a persuader of constitutional breakdown and never been free from political biasness. Periodically, they have proved their political fidelity towards theirpatron political parties over the allegiance and responsibilities of constitutional office.It is perceived that after the end of one party dominance and in the era of coalition government the dimension of Indian federalism has been changed from a conflict era to a more cooperative federal system. But the recent incident has proved that the Indian political system has to cut across a long route of malicious politics, misuse of constitutional provisionsand holding the dignity and impartiality of the gubernatorial office, towards a cooperative federalism.

Tarannum Bano is the Research Scholar in the Department of Political Science, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi,
Author can be mailed at [email protected]