Search the Internet          Tips

Stern warning or slap on the wrist?

With the issue of Tamil Nadu Governor Fathima Beevi resolved following her resignation and its acceptance, the Union Cabinet will in meetings today (Monday) and Tuesday discuss and decide on measures to resolve what it perceives as the defiance of the state government.

The Cabinet's collective thinking, as articulated during its emergency session at Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's residence on Sunday afternoon, is to crack the whip on the Jayalalithaa Jayaram government, but stop short of imposing President's rule under the provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution.

The Cabinet, thus, will consider using the provisions of Article 355 or Article 256 to bring the state government to heel -- and, thereby, serve warning to the Jayalalithaa government that any further 'transgressions' could entail the imposition of Article 356.

Discussing the two options, senior Supreme Court lawyer Prashant Bhushan points out that under either Article 355 or Article 256, the Centre can issue directives to the state to uphold the provisions of the Indian Constitution.

As per Article 355, the Centre can issue directives to the state government and in the event of non-compliance, "the Centre then is within its rights to invoke Article 356, on the grounds that the constitutional machinery has broken down," Bhushan elaborates.

In this sense, the use of Article 355 is in the nature of a stern warning from the Centre to the state, and a means to put the state government on notice that the threat of dismissal now hangs over it.

A directive under Article 355, as contemplated by the Cabinet, could ask that the state government "uphold the rights of the citizens and maintain law and order."

“The Supreme Court has discussed the Article in detail in course of its hearings during the Bommai case, and norms have been laid out in its judgement," Bhushan pointed out.

Then Karnataka chief minister S R Bommai had moved the Supreme Court, questioning the imposition of President’s rule in his state. The case led to a landmark judgement on the Centre's right to interfere in the affairs of the state.

Article 256 is the milder option, and is merely an advisory, as opposed to a directive. Under its provisions, the Centre “can direct the state to carry on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”

Which in the real scheme of things means nothing more than a light tap on the wrist, given that state governments are duty bound to function in accordance with the Constitution anyway.

Thus, the use of Article 256 is merely a reminder to a state government that it is mandatory for “the executive power of the state to comply with the laws laid down by the Indian Parliament”, a senior government advocate pointed out.

The Centre does not need the approval of Parliament to invoke either Article 355 or 256. "No specific conditions need be met before using either of those articles," the government advocate pointed out.

Article 356, under the provisions of which the Centre can dismiss the state government and place the state under President's rule, however carries with it the condition that "the approval of both Houses of Parliament have to be obtained within six months."

Interestingly, various members of the ruling National Democratic Alliance are opposed to Article 356. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagham, whose president Muthuvel Karunanidhi is now in jail and whose arrest has sparked the ongoing Centre-state confrontation, has in fact made the repeal of the Article one of its electoral planks.

However, in the light of recent events in Tamil Nadu, all NDA constituents, and most other major political parties, have demanded the imposition of President's rule in Tamil Nadu. Even Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu, the most strident opponent of the controversial Article, has in the aftermath of Karunanidhi's arrest stated that his party would fully back any action the Centre chose to take.

The arithmetic, however, is not in favour of the ruling NDA coalition. The Opposition has a simple majority in the Upper House, and the Congress, while officially condemning the arrests in Tamil Nadu, is unlikely to vote in favour of President's rule in the state.

The Centre, thus, is forced to go with either of the two softer options, Article 355 or 256.

Karunanidhi's Arrest: The Complete Coverage

Back to top

Tell us what you think of this report