The Centre-State Conflict

The Proclamation of Emergency in the state of Arunachal Pradesh has triggered a fresh debate on the conflicts between the Centre and State Governments, especially with a constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Justice J.S Kehar, examining the issue.

The Constitution of India provides for a Federation-like structure for the nation. Federation-like because the Centre enjoys an upper hand over the states in a lot of matters, especially those concerning national security.

So coming back to our topic of discussion;

Article 356 of the Constitution of India contains “Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States”. Under this provision, the President of India (Read: The Central Government) on receipt of report from the Governor of a State (Again, Central Government) is empowered to impose a state of emergency in the State, if the President is satisfied that the State Government cannot function as per the Constitutional Provisions (although the main use has been to suspend State Governments to extract political mileage).

Article 356(1) reads as under:

“356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State

(1) If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with he provisions of this Constitution, the President may be Proclamation

(a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State;

(b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;

(c) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the president to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this constitution relating to any body or authority in the State Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorise the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to High Courts”

The Article further goes on to lay the time frame for which such an emergency may be imposed. The president’s rule may be imposed for a period of two months, if the parliament is not in session, subsequent to which, it has to be passed by both houses of the Parliament. Such a proclamation is now valid for a period of six months. It can further be extended, if approved by the parliament, to a maximum period of three years.

Article 356(2) & (3) read as under:

"(2) Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation

(3) Every Proclamation issued under this article except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation Shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People.”

The first use of Article 356 in Independent India was in 1953 when the Coalition Government of the Akali Dal in Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) was suspended and President’s rule was imposed by the Congress Government at the Centre. Elections were held about a year later where the Congress Government secured a majority.

The practice of imposing emergency became very common during the 1970s and 80s till the Supreme Court verdict in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918, which laid down guidelines to curtail the misuse of Article 356 by the Central Government. The landmark observation in this Judgment was that the exercise of power under Article 356 is not immune from judicial review. The Courts have the power to ascertain the material behind the imposition of President’s rule in a State.