Que. Account for the legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Governments since mid 1990s.
संघीय सरकारों द्वारा 1990 के दशक के मध्य से अनुच्छेद 356 के उपयोग की कम आवृत्ति के लिये जिम्मेदार विधिक एवं राजनीतिक कारकों का विवरण प्रस्तुत कीजिए।
Structure of the Answer
(i) Introduction: Briefly introduce Article 356 and factors leading to its reduced use post-1990s, highlighting both legal and political aspects.
(ii) Main Body: Discuss the “legal” and “political” factors responsible for reducing the frequency of invoking Article 356 in India since mid-1990s.
(iii) Conclusion: Summarize the long-term implications of these factors on “federalism” and “democratic governance” in India.
Introduction
The reduced invocation of Article 356, which empowers the imposition of “President’s Rule,” post-1990s, stems from significant “legal reforms” and evolving “political dynamics,” strengthening India’s federal structure and constitutional integrity.
Legal Factors Responsible for Reduced Use of Article 356
(i) S.R. Bommai Judgment (1994): The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai vs Union of India laid down strict guidelines for the invocation of Article 356, including “judicial review” of the President’s Rule, limiting arbitrary dismissals.
(ii) Judicial Review and Accountability: The judiciary ensures that any imposition of President’s Rule is subject to “judicial scrutiny,” making it constitutionally mandatory for the Union government to provide sufficient evidence of “constitutional breakdown.”
(iii) Parliamentary Approval Requirement: Article 356 must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months, adding a legislative layer of accountability and discouraging misuse for political reasons.
(iv) Checks on Central Power: The judiciary’s role and subsequent interpretations of Article 356 promote the concept of “federal balance,” ensuring that the Union does not encroach on states’ rights without just cause.
(v) Emergence of Constitutional Morality: The emphasis on constitutional morality and good governance since the mid-1990s has forced Union governments to use Article 356 sparingly and within the bounds of “constitutional propriety.”
Political Factors Responsible for Reduced Use of Article 356
(i) Coalition Politics and Regional Influence: The rise of coalition governments since the 1990s, where “regional parties” wield significant influence, has politically constrained the Union from invoking Article 356, as it would alienate key political allies.
(ii) Shift Towards Cooperative Federalism: The post-liberalization era witnessed a shift towards “cooperative federalism,” where greater autonomy for states became politically desirable, reducing tensions between the Centre and states.
(iii) Increased Political Costs of Misuse: Invoking Article 356 is now seen as politically costly, leading to backlash from opposition parties, media, and civil society, thereby discouraging its use without strong constitutional justification.
(iv) Empowerment of Regional Leadership: Strong regional leaders in states have built political capital, making it difficult for the Union to impose President’s Rule without risking electoral consequences in subsequent elections.
(v) Federalism-Driven Electoral Politics: The Union’s electoral calculus now revolves around respecting “state autonomy,” as excessive central interference can harm its electoral prospects in state elections, incentivizing restraint.
Impact of Legal and Political Developments on Federalism
(i) Strengthening of Federalism: The reduced use of Article 356 ensures the protection of India’s “federal structure,” where states are allowed to function without undue interference from the Centre.
(ii) Preservation of Democratic Processes: By limiting arbitrary dismissals of state governments, democratic processes in states are upheld, promoting stability and reducing central authoritarianism.
(iii) Promoting State Autonomy: The emphasis on cooperative federalism has fostered greater “state autonomy,” allowing states to independently pursue policies based on their unique needs and aspirations.
(iv) Increased Use of Dialogue over Dismissal: Political dialogue, rather than the imposition of President’s Rule, has become the preferred method of resolving Centre-state disputes, furthering democratic governance.
(v) Erosion of Central Dominance: The role of the Union in directly controlling states has diminished, signaling the growth of a more decentralized form of governance where power is more equitably distributed.
Challenges and Remaining Concerns
(i) State-level Political Instability: While reduced misuse of Article 356 is a positive development, political instability in certain states still challenges effective governance, necessitating alternative mechanisms for intervention.
(ii) Judicial Delays and Limitations: Although judicial review is a powerful check, delays in verdicts on the legitimacy of invoking Article 356 can lead to prolonged uncertainty in the states.
(iii) Misuse at the Margins: Despite significant reductions, isolated instances of its misuse still occur, raising concerns about the need for more precise constitutional reforms to prevent even exceptional cases.
(iv) Ambiguity in Defining “Constitutional Breakdown”: The lack of a clear constitutional definition of “breakdown of constitutional machinery” leaves scope for subjective interpretations, which can be misused in politically charged scenarios.
(v) Dependence on Political Consensus: The reliance on coalition politics and political alliances to prevent the misuse of Article 356 raises concerns about the longevity of these reforms should political dynamics change.
Conclusion
The reduced use of Article 356 reflects a deepening commitment to “federalism” and “democratic governance,” though further constitutional clarity and political consensus are essential to safeguard state autonomy long-term.
