Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
the vital objective of maintaining the unity and integrity of the country. It is
based on the principle of division of functions between the centre and the
states, with each operating within its respective sphere. But in actual practice,
in most of the federations of the world, the centre has become powerful than
In India also, this tendency persists. Not only has the constitution
divided the powers between the centre and the states to give a special tilt in
favour of the centre, but also the centre has come to acquire some of the
powers of the states as well. As a result, often a demand is made that this
trend must be checked and the states must be permitted greater autonomy
within their spheres. Almost all the state governments in India addressed
their grievances against the centre at one point of time or the other.
reasonably well during the 17 year period from 1950 to 1967. During this
period, the Congress party was ruling both in the centre and in the states
(except PEPSI) in 1953 and Kerala in 1957), therefore, the relations between
the centre and the states by and large were smooth. Even if there were a few
union and the aggrieved states, and the complaints quieted down after the
158
However, with the passage of time, many irritants have cropped up into
the working of the Indian federalism. The era of co-operation ended partially
after the death of Nehru on 27th May 1964 and largely after the Fourth
General Election held in February 1967. After these elections, the dominance
of the Congress party at the centre and in some states declined considerably.
Its majority in the Lok Sabha was reduced from 361 in 1962 to 282 seats. In 9
1980, the political situation in the country has undergone a qualitative change
as some powerful regional parties have come into power in some states, and
CPI (M) has further strengthened its hold in West Bengal and Tripura.
Moreover, the Janata Party was ruling in Karnataka. The opposition leaders of
the Congress party in these states began to speak the language of conflict,
threats, warnings and complaints. The relations between the centre and the
states strained mainly because of partisan role of the centre. In this backdrop,
an attempt is made in this chapter to discuss major tension areas between the
possible to appoint the same person as a Governor for two or more states.
Regarding his appointment Article 155 stipulates that the President of India
shall appoint the Governor of a state by warrant under his hand and seal. As
the President of India acts in accordance with the advice given by the union
159
appoints him on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Speaking in actual
alone.
Article 156 says that the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure
of the President. Subject to this provision, he shall hold office for a term of
five years from the date on which he enters upon his office. The Governor
former Governor continues to hold office till the new Governor enters upon
his office. Since he holds office during the pleasure of the President, no
the constitution.
in India. Firstly, while appointing the Governors, consultation with the Chief
the Governor. These two usages are proved beneficial in strengthening the
prestige of the office of the Governor on one hand and smooth functioning of
case of the first usage serious controversies and misgivings were developed.
Up to 1967, the consultation of Chief Minister went smooth. After 1967, non
160
In the absence of any standard guidelines and desirable qualifications,
the office of the Governor has become a perennial source for the ruling clique
to post any person of their choices irrespective of his caliber and competence
to man the position. The growing discontentment among the opposition ruled
Governor. But those who were appointed have developed a tendency to act
for and on behalf of the party in power at the centre and subverting
stalwarts, the defeated politicians, the defectors, and those bureaucrats who
loyal to the party in the past. The Table 4.1 gives the list of some Governors
who were appointed recently (2000-09) and the posts they held earlier.
Table: 4.1
List of some Governors and posts they held earlier
S.No Name of the Governor State Post Held Earlier
1 E.L.S. Narasimhan Andhra Pradesh Intelligence Bureau
Chief
2 M.K. Narayananan West Bengal National Security
Adviser
3 Sankar Narayan Maharashtra Senior Congress Leader
4 Sivaraj Patil Punjab Senior Congress Leader
5 M.A. Farooq Jharkhand Senior Congress Leader
6 Prabha Rao Rajasthan Senior Congress Leader
7 Urmilaben Patel Himachal
Pradesh Senior Congress Leader
8 Sekhar Dutt Chattisgarh Bureaucrat
9 Sivindhar Singh Goa Indian Administrative
Service
10 Balmiki Prasad Singh Sikkim Indian Administrative
Service
11 Gurubachan Singh Manipur Indian Police Service
12 Ranjit Sekhar Meghalaya India Police Service
13 Nikil Kumar Nagaland Indian Police Service
14 Madhan Mohan Lakharia Mizoram Retired Military Officer
Source: Andhra Jyothi (Daily), entitled 'New Governors' dated: Jan 20, 2010, p. 4.
161
The above table reveals that most of the Governors are either senior
Therefore, it was alleged that the Raj Bhavans had become the centers of
petty politics and the Governors are not in conformity with the expectations of
the founding fathers of the constitution. The Raj Bhawans were quite often
Andhra Pradesh, in 2009 had to resign for his immoral activities in Raj
concomitants of. the office. The office of the Governor is fast losing its
Role of Governor
government of the British model both for the centre and the states, the
Governor imitates Her Majesty, the Queen, within his microcosm. In all
aid and advice the Governor in the exercise of his functions except when he
is required to exercise his functions in his discretion {Article 163). This does
not mean that he must accept its advice immediately and automatically. But
162
he may ask his Council of Ministers to reconsider its advice to which he is
powers, the Governor cannot behave like a despot because the President of
The Governor has unique role to play in Indias federal system. But his
role has always been a controversial issue almost ever since the inception of
this high office. It has become an important and irritating ingredient in centre-
state relations. The very mode of his appointment and the misuse of his
discretionary powers were the centre of controversy. K.V. Rao says, today
at the root of all troubles is the simple fact that the Head of the State is
subordinate to the President and events prove that he cannot disobey him.
K.V. Rao distinguishes between his role as a link and that of an agent. His
role as a link is more positive than the role as an agent. He cannot be both
government, but not its antithesis nor a spy of the centre. Leaving aside the
discussion as to what an ideal situation would be, the post 1967 period
shows that the Governor is today more an agent of the centre rather than of
the state. It is observed that over the years, the parties in power at the centre
misused this institution to serve their vested interests. Their partisan and
selfish acts have reduced the Indian federalism into a mockery of state
163
themselves sold to the wishes of political masters at the centre causing
he is to act in his discretion and not on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
The decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final and the validity of
anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground
that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion. Moreover, what is
the provisions relating to the exercise of these powers are couched in general
and vague terms. K.V. Rao a noted political scientist lays the blame for this
lack of time at the disposal of the assembly. He says the whole set of
in a hurry in one day that the whole constitution and its structure was
envisaged in such a way as if the Congress and its then High command
would be in power for a long time.3 The authority of the Govenor even in the
politics, the President can always check him. If necessary, he may even
164
remove him. Therefore, discretion has to be exercised so as not to
The following are some instances where an opportunity arises for the
> If after the general elections, no single party is able to secure a clear
Governor can use his discretion to determine which party has the best
> In case, the Governor concludes that none of the parties represented
> The Governor can reserve a bill or bills passed by the state legislature
policy issue.
> In case, the Governor finds the Chief Minsters non-compliance with
165
> In case, he is satisfied that the Chief Minister has lost his majority in
the Assembly.
> In case, the Governor has reasons to believe that, the state
often acted with partisan attitude and as agents of the party in power at the
centre. In the name of discretionary powers, they misused their powers with
discussed below.
of the Chief Minister as long as the political party staking claim for formation
of government commands clear majority. This did not pose any problem till
centre and in the states. The Post-1967 period, posed a dilemma as the
assembly and the situation is fluid, the discretionary role of the Governor
166
Governor is left with no choice except appointing the majority party leader as
scope for the Governor to act in his discretion. Under these circumstances,
should he ask the leader of the single largest party or group of parties
Noted constitutional experts have supported the view that the leader of
Subba Rao opines that the leader of the opposition be invited unless his
chances of forming the government are quite bleak. The term stability is
taken to mean not only the numerical superiority of the ruling party but also
its ability to hold on to the majority strength and continuing with it.7 In both
the above given cases the problem becomes embarrassing and complicated
one party to the other (this problem has come down to the maximum extent
after anti-defection law was made in 1989). No easy solutions are available
and whichever minority party or group of parties was called upon to form a
state has to invite single largest party leader as the Chief Minister or a leader
167
of the combined front of different political parties. Here the Governor may
inviting the leader of the single largest party or alliance in the assembly
closest to majority or may choose the favorite of the centre and give him
at the behest of centre. This may be the Congress again in some states and
asking it to form the government would be wrong because the voters may or
may not have voted in favour of the opposition, but one thing is clear that
divergent norms to guide their behaviour. In the first general elections held in
formed a front, gained major seats, and elected T. Prakasam as their leader.
invited the congress party leader to form the government on the pretext that
the party emerged as a single largest party. Again, in 1967 the Governor of
Rajasthan invited the leader of the largest party, the Congress, ignoring the
claim of the United Front, which had 92 out of 184 MLAs at its back. While
the same did not happen in some of the cases. For instance, in 1965, the
Governor of Kerala did not invite the leader of the single largest party CPI to
and Utter Pradesh in 1993 and 1996 (where BJP emerged as the single
168
largest party). It may be inferred from these examples that the Governors
acted in such a way, which is beneficial to the ruling party at the centre.
another opportunity in the hands of the Governors to prove their loyalty to the
party at the centre and to subvert the democratic process of testing the
floor of House, the Governors in several cases have inflicted the ignominy of
forcing legislators to parade before them. The parade system is the physical
verification of the list in the assembly. He must summon the session of the
assembly and ask the contenders to show their strength without the least
possible delay. The result is not very satisfactory and does not give effect to
the verdict of the electorate. But the electorate has to thank itself for not
giving a clear verdict.12 There are many examples of Raj Bhavan inspired
political coups with blessings from Delhi as happened in Andhra Pradesh and
the political events of August 1984. When Ram Lai was appointed as the
Governor of Andhra Pradesh, then the Chief Minister N.T. Rama Rao
criticised the centre on the ground that the state government was not
169
consulted in the matter. Still, the relations between the Governor and the
Chief Minister were cordial in the first few months. But slowly the Governor
started giving pinpricks to the government on a few issues like his indecision
stall the privileges issue against the Eenadu (perception that it is a pro-
Telugu Desam Party news paper), the appointment of G.N. Reddy as Vice
State Chief Minister, etc. But a crisis situation was created over the political
both in the Telugu Desam Party and the Government. The tallying point in
this dissident activity was the then Finance Minister N. Nadendla Bhaskara
Rao. It was alleged that N. Bhaskar Rao was plotting for the overthrow of the
Chief Minister with the support of the Congress Party in the state. In due
course, the Chief Minister sacked Bhaskar Rao from the ministry for his anti
party activities. This event was followed by the resignation of three Ministers
from the Cabinet. Immediately Bhaskar Rao staked his claim to the office of
the Chief Minster on the ground that N.T. Rama Rao had lost his majority
Assembly members. He also called on the Governor and put forward his
claim. N.T Rama Rao, on the other hand, submitted a memorandum to the
spite of repeated pleas, the Governor was neither willing to see the 163
170
MLAs nor summon the Assembly to prove his majority by the Chief Minister.
The stand of the Govenor went against all canons of constitutional propriety
and set the stage for a deep political crisis. He dismissed Rama Rao and
appointed Bhaskara Rao as the Chief Minister on August 15, 198, on the
ground that he was satisfied that Bhaskar Rao had majority in the Assembly.
While Rama Rao was denied an opportunity to prove his majority on the floor
of the Assembly within three days, Bhaskar Rao was given 30 days time to
Rama Rao and the non-congress opposition party leaders described the
action of Ram Lai as daylight murder of democracy and alleged that the
Congress party at the centre engineered the developments. The press was
also very critical about the action of Ram Lai. There was a wide-spread
demand for the recall of the Governor. In the face of the pouring criticism
against his role, Ram Lai resigned the office of the Governor and the central
Andhra Pradesh.
On completion of one months time, Bhaskara Rao could not face the
Assembly and consequently laid down his office. The Govenor then had no
171
The foregoing account clearly established the fact that the role played
by the then Governor Ram Lai created serious strains in the relations
When the Governor appoints the Chief Minister under Articlel 64 (1),
Ministers under the same clause he acts on the advice of the Chief Minister.
This would imply that he is not as free while removing a Minister or the
the Chief Minister is obligatory on the part of the Governor with regard to the
farce.13 But the Governor cannot dismiss the ministry in a collective form.
The words during the pleasure of the Governor in reality mean the pleasure
of the legislative assembly and not to the Governor. Lastly, in all cases of
dismissal either of the Chief Minister, a Minister or the entire ministry the
splits or defections in ruling party jeopardize the position of the Chief Minister.
In such situation, the Governor has to ask the Chief Minister either to prove
172
his majority on the floor of the house or may demand his resignation. If the
Chief Minister refuses to prove his majority in the Assembly, then the
Governors did not give a chance to some Chief Ministers to prove their
majority on the floor of the house; instead, they hurriedly removed them
Table - 4.2
173
but to order dissolution. Similarly, the Governor can order dissolution, under
article 356, if the Ministry resigns without passing the budget. But if the
suggestion of dissolution comes from a Ministry that has lost its majority and
is afraid of the opposition taking over, the Governor can refuse. In this case,
it is his duty to summon the house and try to find an alternative in the
ministerial advice for dissolution of assembly are not lacking. The debatable
and Uttar Pradesh and latest being the dissolution of Bihar Assembly in May
2005, where the then Governor spoke of the likelihood of Nitish Kumar
Legislative Assembly. Nor has there emerged any uniform practice in this
keeping in view the interests of the ruling party at the centre. Whenever the
ruling party at the centre felt that it would be in a position to form alternative
174
Ministry either by maneuvering defections or otherwise, the Assemblies were
suspended, otherwise they were dissolved. The following Table 4:3 gives the
Table: 4.3
Assemblies suspended to give a chance to
Congress to form the Government
in order to prevent the opposition to form the government when the Congress
Ministries or the Ministers supported by it went out of office. They are shown
Table: 4.4
Assemblies dissolved to prevent
the opposition to form the government
Name of the State Year
Andhra Pradesh 1954
Kerala 1965, 1967 and 1982
Manipur 1969
Tripura 1971
West Bengal 1971
Odisha 1973
Assam 1982
Source: A compilation from various documents and News Papers
175
Here it may also be mentioned that the assemblies were also straight
away dissolved in some cases when the state governments not belonging to
the party in power at the centre. This was done in the states shown in the
Table: 4.5
Assemblies dissolved strait away
Name of the State/UTs Year dissolved
PEPSU 1953
Kerala 1959
Haryana 1967
Tamil Nadu 1976
Karnataka 1977
Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, MP, Punjab,
Rajasthan, West Bengal, U.P and Odisha. 1977
Puducherry. 1978
Punjab, U.P, Bihar, Odisha, M.P, Rajasthan,
1980
Gujarat, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu
Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No.2, April-June, 1985
Assemblies of the above states dissolved though the ruling party still
had a majority in the assembly and the chances of the Congress party to
come into power were very remote, almost nil. Particularly in 1977, the
that in these states Congress was defeated in the Lok Sabha elections. On
1965, the assembly was dissolved immediately after the mid-term poll and
that too before the newly elected MLAs could take the oath of office.
176
(e) Suspension of the Assemblies for resolving intra-party conflict
The factional strife has been one of the characteristics of the Congress
party and whenever the factional fight crossed the reasonable limits of the
1951, 1956 and again in 1983, in Andhra Pradesh in 1973, in U.P and
Odisha in 1975.
at the state level. This was done in U.P in 1973 and in Gujarat in 1974. This,
It is evident from the above context that the office of Governor has
causing heavy strain on federalism since long. Quite a few have shown
powers in the past would reveal that the Governors have not exactly used
their discretion in the true sense of the term as the framers of the constitution
thought.
reservation of bills by the Governors for the assent of the President of India.
177
Under the Articles of 200 and 201 of the constitution, the Governor is
assemblies and adopts delaying tactics.15 with respect to opposition led state
misusing the office of Governor to subvert the mandate they have received
from electorate to pursue welfare programmes for them. In fact, the states do
not enjoy full legislative freedom even in the matters mentioned in the state
list.
According to Article 175 (1), the Governor can address either house of
delivers the special address at the commencement of the first session after
of the first session of the year and an inaugural address at the budget
and his Council of Ministers. The address must not refer to the High Court
and should be in accordance with the oath that the Govenor takes under
Article 159. In all cases, it is a written speech and he merely intones the
178
The important question in this regard is that can he delete an
whether the Governor of a state must read out the address given to him by
the Ministry. In the case of West Bengal, Governor Dharma Vira refused to
read out some portions in March 1969 from the address given to him by the
United Front government that were derogatory to him and the central
government. The result was that the state assembly adopted only a
that the Governor had unlawfully omitted that part of the speech, approved by
unconstitutional dismissal of the United Front Ministry formed after the Fourth
General Elections.
address to the assembly in March 1969, commented that after the fall of the
fundamental rights were violated and trampled upon in Punjab. He also said
was brought into the Punjab assembly and constitutional rights and practices
were gravely violated at the time of the passing of the budget. While in the
former case, the Governor skipped some portion of the address, in the latter
179
Some constitutional experts like Ashoka Sen and M. C. Setalvad held
the view that he can avoid reading certain lines or paragraphs when these
lines or paragraphs condemn the Govenor for his earlier actions (it would be
as if the Governor was delivering a verdict against his own self) and it is not
governments in the states, the Governor has to discharge his duties on the
some occasions, the Governors refused to act on the advice of the state
sign on the ordinance, which was intended to take action on erring Vice-
Chancellors of the state. In the same state, the Governor appointed two
180
student representatives to the Executive Council of a University without
Tamil Nadu relieved him from all the duties concerned with the Universities.
181
(4) Failure of Constitutional Machinery
Prior to going into the details of proper use or misuse of the Article
regarding to the Presidents rule. The constitution provides for carrying on the
> It is a duty of the union to ensure that the government of every state is
> Such proclamation may also be made by the President wherein any
state has failed to comply with or to give effect to any directions given
by the union, in the exercise of its executive power to the state (Art.
365).
a situation in which the government of the state can not be carried out in
accordance with the provisions of the constitution are quite vague and H.N.
Assembly. But Dr. Ambedkar was in no mood to explain its meaning and he
merely said that the phrase has been used in the Government of India Act
182
1935 and every body must be quite familiar. Therefore, with its defacto and
because of the vague expression and the use of the word otherwise.21 Even
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar himself did not rule out this possibility22 however, he
expected that this article would be sparingly used and the President would
state.23 But unfortunately this expectation of Dr B.R. Ambedkar did not prove
to be true and its misuse started immediately after the adoption of the new
constitution in 1950. This provoked Dr. B.R. Ambedkar to say: The people
have got a very legitimate ground for suspicion that the government is
manipulating the article in the constitution for the purpose of maintaining their
own party in office in all parts of India... .This is a rape of the constitution.24
In all till 2009, the Presidents rule has been imposed 115 times and
183
(iv) Denying opportunity to the opposition to form government when
(v) Not allowing the opposition to form government even after the defeat
Ravana which is almost true about Indian politics as well because the
governments, which were dismissed under this article, had majority and
prepared to prove their majority on the floor of the House. Yet they were
below.
(1) Gian Singh Rarewales Ministry in PEPSU was dismissed (1953) on the
following grounds:
The house was adjourned by the Speaker on the request of the Chief
Minister.
184
Election petition against 15-20 persons were pending in the court.
parties.
Thirty members had defected one way or other and some of them had
defected more than once which had made the mockery of democracy.
185
(4) The Ministry of Karunanidhi in Tamil Nadu was dismissed because there
(6) Another nine state governments were dismissed in 1980 by the Congress
government on the same ground and another reason that these state
The grounds mentioned above clearly prove that the party in power at
Articles 355, 356 and 365 give enormous scope for the centre either to
recalcitrant state. This provision is perhaps the most obnoxious one since the
very beginning and has been vehemently opposed and criticized by state
government from office. There are several examples since the first imposition
the state governments on various grounds like law and order problem,
186
For the proper understanding of the use of Article 356, it is aptly
Elections in 1967. Article 356 was used on nine occasions beginning with
imposition of the Presidents rule in Punjab from 20th June 1951. The
occasions for Presidents rule during this period were few in comparison to
the frequency with which Article 356 was invoked after this phase.25 The most
nations politics.
Besides Punjab, the Presidents rule during this phase was imposed in
PEPSU in 1953 (Patiala and East Punjab States Union), Andhra State (new
state created out of Madras) Odisha and Kerala. The major victim of use of
Article 356 during this phase was Kerala. During this phase in Kerala, the
political instability made two ministries led by Pattam Thanu Pillai and Govind
Menon fell down. The state came under Presidents rule on March 23, 1956.
After the election Indias first Communist led government assumed power
through ballot. But within two years, the non-communist opposition combined
The non-communist led agitation became law and order issue and therefore,
187
the Governor recommended imposition of the Presidents rule in the state for
the second time in 1959. The post-presidents rule election results in Kerala
had to face many crises and dramatics ultimately leading to the imposition of
socialist leader indicted the Rajpramukh for being partisan in his conduct and
the central government for setting up of wrong kinds of practices and wrong
centre as well as states. However, the way the Article was used speaks
cases was technically not sound. It exposed the intolerant attitude towards
instability and emergency. The second phase was influenced by the political
Article 356 was used 29 times. The states that affected were Punjab (Thrice),
188
Rajasthan (once), Haryana (once), West Bengal (thrice), Uttar Pradesh (4
Nagaland (once) and Tamil Nadu (once). In this phase, the duration of the
Presidents rule varied from 18 days to 494 days. The Uttar Pradesh became
The most remarkable feature of this phase was that the Article 356
was used in Congress ruled states of Andhra Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and
Odisha to cure factional feud in the party. The revolt in the party of these
states was against the leaders of the government. The Chief Ministers of
these three states were not duly elected by the legislators but were imposed
Ministers of Congress ruled states depend upon their loyalty to bosses and till
they enjoy blessings from above. This shows that the dissolution and
centre.29
the ruling partys armory to bring its members to the book, it would loose
much of its sanctity.30 The higher echelons of Governance in the country did
189
The Third Phase (1977-1984)
Mrs. Indira Gandhi who was ousted from power by a negative vote against
Congress in 1977 and even put behind the bar came to limelight when the
loose credibility and another mid-term poll was imposed on the nation in
January 1980. Negative vote against Mrs. Indira Gandhi in 1977 saw her out
The history of Presidents rule during this phase was an act of political
Immediately after Lok Sabha elections, the new power brokers thought about
dissolving state assemblies of nine states from where the Janata party
returned to Lok Sabha with thumping majority. Keeping in view of these aims
and objectives, the then Union Home Minister Mr. Charan Singh advised the
assemblies. But the Congress Chief Ministers of these nine states refused to
comply with the advice of the union. Therefore, the union government
Odisha, Punjab, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. There was no
190
failure of constitutional machinery nor Chief Ministers in these states have
advised the Governors to dissolve nor had the Governors on their own
constitutional provisions.32
where Janata party or its associates fared badly in the election. In 1984, the
BJP led A.B. Vajpayee government wanted to use Art. 356 in Bihar on the
basis of the report of Governor S. S. Bhandari but the then President K.R.
October 31, 1984, her son Mr. Rajiv Gandhi sworn in as the Prime Minister of
India. In the election, which was held in December 1984, the Congress under
191
the leadership of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi returned to power with massive mandate.
power but within a year, it was disappeared due to internal bickering. After
that, Mr. Chandra Sekhar formed the government with the support of
Congress party. This government also failed to continue more than three
months. This political instability led to another mid-term poll in 1991. But
states, namely Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland, Mizoram, Tamil Nadu
and Karnataka. In Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab, the most sensitive areas
where ethno-centrism was one of the rises, the centre preferred keeping the
power without facing election. Success came in Srinagar but when Punjab
could not provide scope the house was dissolved. In Tamil Nadu, Nagaland,
Mizoram and Karnataka the legislatures were dissolved without exploring the
namely, Jammu & Kashmir and Karnataka. But after the exit of V.P.Singh,
Chandrasekhar became the Prime Minister and used Article 356 where non-
192
compliance to centres directive warranted action under Article 356. The DMK
Governor. During the Prime Ministership of Sri. P.V.Narasimha Rao the ugly
Pradesh where BJP was ruling. The plea was taken under threat to the
in Bihar. The ostensible reasons were the breakdown of law and order and
Then all checks and balances afforded by the constitution were brought into
rule. The then President K.R. Narayanan on September 25, 1998 repeated
the history by returning the decision of Presidents rule in Bihar and the
193
The Sixth Phase (2001-2009)
center. The central government applied Article 356 after careful consideration
of the situation only. In 2001, President Rule was imposed in Manipur in the
wake of political crisis caused by the fall of the Samata Party-led United
Democratic Alliance (UDA) government. The crisis began when 3 months old
in favour of the confidence motion and 39 members voted against it. Two
members abstained and one member was disqualified. Some of the members
Prakash Marwah told the media persons that he had listened to the claims of
all of them but none was convincing. The claims he said, were all based on
hypothetical support.
again, President rule was imposed in Utter Pradesh because after the
Samadiwadi Party became the Chief Minister. He failed to submit the list of
194
In 2005, the centre applied Article 356 in Goa despite the Chief
Assembly with the help of Pro-tem Speakers casting vote. The centre has
taken suo motu action without waiting for the Governors report. Bharatia
presidents rule in Goa. It alleged that the Pro-tem speaker obstructed UGDP
MLA Mathavy Saldanha from taking party in the proceedings and cast his
majority to form the government. Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) emerged as the
single largest party with 75 votes of 243-member assembly. It also had the
refused to support any of the parties. NDA did not come forward to form the
motion. The centers decision to impose Presidents rule, the second time in
the last two months, brings to an end the political drama that was witnessed
in the state on the issue of transfer of power between coalitions partners BJP
and JD(S). The crisis was triggered by BJPs refusal to accept JD(S)
195
demands to sign a new power-sharing deal allotting plum ministerial portfolios
to it.
In this phase, centre was not hasty in imposing Presidents rule. It was
when Presidents rule has been imposed denying duly elected governments
shows that this provision has been thoroughly misused by the central
that is the reason why some of the regional parties, particularly the DMK and
AIADMK in the South and Akali Dal in the North demanded the deletion of
Article 356 which provides for the imposition of the Presidents rule in the
state.
The following Table 4.6 indicates the number of times the President
196
Table - 4.6
Presidents Rule in States and Union Territories
(As on 2009)
State/Union No. times
SI. No Year of Imposition
Territory Imposed
1 Andhra Pradesh 2 1954, 1973
2 Arunachal Pradesh 1 1979
3 Assam 4 1979,1981,1982, 1990
1968, 1969,1972, 1977,
4 Bihar 8
1980, 1995, 1999, 2005
5 Chhattisgarh Nil
6 Goa 5 1966, 1979, 1990, 1999, 2005
7 Gujarat 5 1971, 1974, 1976, 1980, 1996
8 Haryana 3 1967, 1977, 1991
9 Himachal Pradesh 2 1977, 1992
10 Jammu & Kashmir 2 1986,1990
11 Jharkhand 1 2009
12 Karnataka 5 1971, 1977, 1989, 1990, 2007
1956, 1956, 1959, 1964, 1965,
13 Kerala 9
1970, 1979, 1981,1982
14 Madhya Pradesh 3 1977, 1980, 1992
15 Maharashtra 1 1980
1972, 1973,1977, 1979, 1981,
16 Manipur 8
1992, 1994, 2001
17 Meghalaya 2 1991,2009
18 Mizoram 3 1977, 1978, 1988
19 Nagaland 3 1975, 1988, 1992
1961, 1971, 1973, 1976,1977,
20 Odisha 6
1980
21 Patiala East Punjab States Union 1 1953
1951, 1966, 1968, 1971, 1977,
22 Punjab 8
1980, 1983, 1987,
23 Rajasthan 4 1967, 1977, 1980, 1992
24 Sikkim 2 1979, 1984
25 Tamil Nadu 4 1976. 1980, 1988, 1991
26 Tripura 3 1972, 1977, 1993
1968, 1970, 1973, 1975, 1977,
27 Uttar Pradesh 11 1980 1992, 1995, 1996, 2002,
2003
28 Uttarakhand Nil
29 West Bengal 4 1968, 1970, 1971, 1977
1968, 1974, 1974, 1978, 1983,
30 Puducherry (Union Territory) 6
1991
Total 116
197
Basu D.D., Introduction to the Constitution of India, LexisNexis Butterworths Wadhwa Nagpur,
2008 and Compiled from various other documents.
Furthermore, incumbents of this high office have failed to express the
clear and proper conception of their own role. In several cases, they have
political parties have misused the high office for their narrow and selfish
political ends even at the cost of subverting the popular mandate by playing
political match fixing of the worst kind. As Sarkaria Commission Report says:
The Supreme Court heard all such cases where Article 356 was used
or abused. In the S. R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994), the Court gave its
form of advice. Therefore, this advice can be questioned and thus, the
Court will be an eye opening for the erring Governors.37 In this case, a 9
whether a Ministry has lost the confidence of the House, the only way of
or the President."39
198
Since this judgement, the attitude of the party in power has greatly
changed. In 2001, the union government promised that while appointing the
the judgement of Apex Court, the Presidents rule assumed a new dimension.
Another area of conflict between the union and the states in India has
the states.40 Several central enterprises and undertakings, such as the steel
and ammunition factories, the post and telegraph offices and railways etc.,
are spread all over the states. In times of strikes, lock-outs and violent
demonstrations, these become the object of violence and arson. The central
Para-military forces are deployed in almost every state and union territories
and these are a versatile force trained and equipped to deal with armed
the states themselves make a request the central government for the
deployment. However, at times when the union decides to deploy the central
forces in a state or states for maintaining public order or for protecting upon
199
parties other than the one which is in power at the centre, strongly oppose
the decision. In 1968, serious trouble developed between the centre and
1968. The central government employees all over the country went on strike
and the situation in certain places took violent turn. Without consulting or
even informing the Kerala government in advance, the then Home Minister.
withdraw, with the permission of the Courts, all cases connected with the
strike other than those involving violent attacks on persons and property. The
union government took a serious view of this decision, and told the state
when the Defence Security Corps personnel at the Gun and Shell Factory,
workers and this resulted in the death of five persons. The United Front and
its trade wing, the Rashtriya Sangram Samiti, called a 24-hour Bangla-
Bandh (stoppage of work), and the strike was a total success. The union
into the facts and circumstances relating to the firing. The then Deputy Chief
200
Gurnam Singh also resented the deployment of CRPF units in his state, and
asserted that those units could not act without the authority from the state
government.
had the unfettered right of stationing CRPF and BSF units anywhere it liked
amply clear that the central government had the unquestioned right to deploy
not only the CRPF and BSF units, but also the units of the armed forces in
any state in aid of the civil power. For this purpose, the amendment added a
government was that it was encroaching upon their autonomy even in respect
of those subjects that had been included in the state legislative List and that
the Indian union in actual practice became a unitary state. The state
governments felt that the party in power at centre used the constitution as a
tool to whittle down the authority of states. The centre encroached into the
states autonomy by its amending power. For instance, 3rd 6th, 7th and 42nd
Amendment Acts have brought a number of state subjects under the control
and legislative powers of the centre. They alleged that the 42nd
201
concurrent list, which paved the way for centralization of powers. In the same
way, the federal spirit was slowly damaged by the centre through the partisan
use of the institutions like the Governor. In order to check the increasing
trends towards centralization, the state leaders began to demand that they
should be given more powers. The Chief Minister of West Bengal, Jyothi
Basu, has always advocated freedom for the states, both political and
financial, to the extent that the Chief Minister could run his state
this purpose.
some Chief Ministers demanded for more powers for the states. But they
could not express a unanimous view about the model of state autonomy.
However, the then Maharashtra Chief Minister, Vasant Rao Patil said, My
concept of state autonomy is not like that of Sheikh Abdullah or Jyothi Basu
maintained: Punjabs interest lay not in the political autonomy of the kind
suggested by Jyothi Basu but in greater financial powers, so that the state
the other hand, Sheikh Abdullah had always pleaded for a separate entity of
the Jammu & Kashmir under Article 370 of the Indian constitution.
202
Financial Autonomy
Therefore, the states find themselves dependent upon the union because of
their meager resources and restricted field of taxation. They are dependent
upon the union for allocation of funds from and out of the taxes collected by
it and also from grants.43 The allocation of discretionary grants and loans by
education, medical and public health, which are constitutionally within the
competence of states. Though there is little direct control of the union over
the financial resources earmarked by the constitution for the states, yet, the
former is always in a position to bear indirect pressure upon the states. The
union being in charge of the purse strings can always persuade state to take
its advice.44
the centre and federating units so that the units have sufficient amount of
autonomy in the financial sphere. But in India, the resources allocated to the
states are far from satisfactory. All important sources of revenue are given in
the union list and the position of the states is so weak that they exist at the
doles of the centre. Grants are given to the states but political or partisan
strings may also be traced behind them. The states find themselves
dependent upon the union because of their meager resources and restricted
203
field of taxation. Though there is little direct control of the union over the
financial resources earmarked by the constitution for the states, yet, the
Therefore, a critic said, Ordinarily, the centre can do a lot to feed or starve
states by its overall policy.45The union being in charge of the purse of strings
Above all, the way the central leadership treats the states while giving
grants is often a source of reaction from the states. They regard it as the
most serious constraint upon their autonomy. The states ruled by parties
other than the one in power at the centre often make complaints of
and giving of grants-in-aid.47 in the past, almost all the leaders of regional
and local parties, as well as the leaders of CPI(M), BSP and even CPI
always voiced against the discriminatory treatment meted out to their ruled
states by the Congress at the centre. The use of the superior financial power
of the centre for partisan ends by the party in power remains a perpetual
The financial autonomy for the states is, therefore, being advanced on
204
The present allocation of resources is unfair.
The true concept of autonomy, in fact, implies not only with the internal
freedom of a state but with its limitations as well. The concept does not mean
of the federal government in the prescribed domain of the states. The rights
of the states to work independently of the union within a federal system called
autonomy. Thus, autonomy has assumed the character of the rights of the
states and this has become the backbone of all the modern federal systems.
There were also complaints from different states that the centre had
not shared taxes with them in the spirit of constitution. They felt that they had
but matching finances were not being transferred to them from the centre,
and that under the existing system of allocation of funds the rich states had
205
Undue Role of Planning Commission
The Planning Commission has greatly upset the federal structure and
has assumed the role of super-cabinet to impose its decisions on the states.
The development funds are allocated to the states by the centre on the
The subject on which development is to be made fall under the state list, but
The action is to be taken by the states but initiative comes from the centre.
The bulk of the funds assigned by the union to the states fall within the
activity of the Planning Commission are so wide and extensive that they
cover almost the entire field of government activity. The commission also
prepares all plans of economic development of the country, fixes all broad
targets and the order of priorities. The same body allocates funds for the
The state governments, of course, prepare their own plans, but the
206
discussions with the Planning Commission. The targets and priorities fixed by
states and if it were not so, the state plans were either substantially modified
activities of all the states. Even the legislative activities of the state
education, health and co-operation passed into the hands of the Planning
Commission, The Planning Commission often makes grants for new projects,
but states are obliged to use them only for that particular purpose only.48
where the Planning Commission is not involved, and the composition of the
the states are often overlooked. Voices here, therefore, get higher that the
government and that through financial control it had made the states
subservient to the centre. Therefore, the schemes, which the states consider
the assumption that the centre knows better than that of the states in fixing
priorities and the latter should observe as to what details their schemes
should have and to what extent variants should be permitted. In the opinion
state functions and services like education, agriculture and industrial housing
207
which constituted the raison detre of the states.49 Demands were put forth
Industrial Policy
The states also feel agitated the way the Union government
unilaterally formulates certain economic policies, which affects not only the
national market, but also causes greater repercussions for the state
projects among the states, and regulation of trade and commerce are solely
irritants for the states. Since India is on the path of market-oriented economy,
the style needs to be changed in order to win the confidence of the states.
industries like nuclear and thermal energy and licensing of industrial and
states. The states argued that these were subjects of the State Legislative
List- Industries in entry 24, trade and commerce in entry 26, and production,
supply and distribution of goods in entry 27. But taking advantage of the
208
interest) the centre had brought them virtually under its own control.
Act, specifying those industries, which had to the controlled by the centre in
national interest. The Act originally passed was fair and reasonable and
rightly gave the centre control over vital and strategic industries. However, in
the course of time, more and more industries were brought within the purview
of the said Act, and the result was that the constitutional scheme was
considerably subverted.
because they dislike their dependence on the centre on such vital matters
affecting their developmental needs. Even items like razor blades, paper
soaps and other toilet requisites passed under the central domain. Over
centralization, it was pointed out by state leaders, had resulted in poor rate of
wheat, kerosene, rice and vanaspati, ghee were also brought under central
control and the state leaders often made complaints that the Union Ministers
209
Price Policy
policy. The central government alone determines the price and wage policy
but the states have to suffer the impact of price rise and wage rise, which put
deficits. For instance, the sugar price increased in one year period (Jan
2009-Dec 2009) from Rs. 20 to Rs.46. In the same way, the prices of wheat
and the rice also increased. Some state governments distribute these
Therefore, the state governments demand for more assistance to the states.
The Chief Minister of Punjab, Prakash Singh Badal criticized over the
Punjab has 1.5 per cent of the land but it takes care of 40 per cent of rice
and more than 40 per cent of wheat requirement of the country. But we are
like beggars before the centre. The centre decides on its own prices of
agricultural produce and the states have no choice but to accept them
whereas the cost of inputs like diesel or pesticides, etc is rising. Nobody has
realized what sacrifice Punjab has made for the country. Multi-cropping has
devastated our land, ground water levels have gone deep down, our farmers
deal for the sacrifice we have made. Our canal system needs rejuvenation
210
but we have no money.51 Therefore, he seeks the centre to render help for
this purpose.
Wage Policy
announces Dearness Allowances every sixth months on the basis of the price
rise. It also revises the pay scales of its employees once in every ten years.
The central government has enough resources to meet the wages of its
state governments revise pay scales of their employees once in every five
pay scales also on par with the centre. But the state governments do not
have enough resources to carry the burden of the wages when they are
increased because the states have to spend huge amounts for welfare
schemes. The sources of revenues of the state governments are also limited
and they have to depend on centre for loans. Therefore, the state
governments feel that because of the centers wage policy, they are suffering.
All these have been the major issues and tension areas in the union-
state relations and these have tended to make Indian federation, develop
211
REFERENCES
1, January-March, 2008.
Indian State Elite, Indian Journal of Political Science, June 1980, pp.
198-213.
212
11. Subhash C. Kashyap, Goa Governors Coup, South Asia Politics,
17. Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. This Article empowers the
19. Naziruddin Ahmed said: This article says practically nothing. It says
its draftsmanship that we cannot but admire the Drafting Committee for
diabolical word in this context and I pray to God that this will be
deleted from this article. If God does not intervene today, I am sure at
213
no distant date He will intervene when things will take more serious
turn and the eyes of every one of us will be more awake than they are
22. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar said: In regard to general debate which has taken
place in which it has been suggested that these articles are liable to be
23. Ibid.
26. Lok Sabha Debates, Part-H, Vol. Ill, 29th March 1956.
27. Ibid.
29. Ibid. p. 21
30. Dr. Rabindra Kumar Setty, Political Crisis and Presidents Rule in
Delhi, p.79.
214
34. Ibid. 81
215
51. India Today, State of the States, and Indias Best & Worst
216