18-September-2024-Editorial

EMERGENCY PROVISIONS IMPACT CENTRE-STATE RELATIONS

The recent violence in Manipur has reignited a critical debate on Centre-State relations, especially regarding the role of the Centre in addressing internal crises within a state. The use of emergency provisions, particularly Articles 355 and 356, has come under focus.

These provisions in the Indian Constitution empower the Centre to intervene in state matters during extraordinary situations.

The Manipur situation raises questions about the applicability and limitations of these provisions, as well as the political and legal aspects surrounding their use.

Emergency Provisions for Centre to Protect States

The emergency provisions in the Indian Constitution provide the Centre with the authority to protect states from internal and external disturbances while ensuring that state governments function according to the constitutional framework.

Constitutional Basis

• Part XVIII of the Constitution: This section (Articles 352 to 360) outlines the emergency provisions governing Centre-State relations.
• Article 355: This mandates the Centre to protect states from external aggression and internal disturbances and to ensure that the government in each state operates within the constitutional framework.
• Article 356: Allows the President’s rule to be imposed in a state if its governance is not functioning according to the Constitution, allowing the Centre to assume direct control over the state’s administration.

Emergency Provision Application in Manipur

The crisis in Manipur, marked by large-scale violence and lawlessness, highlights the use and limitations of these emergency provisions.

Severity of the Crisis

• Internal Violence: The widespread violence, including attacks on civilians and the looting of police armouries, shows that the situation in Manipur has gone beyond a mere law and order problem.
• Possible Invocation of Provisions: The scale of the violence suggests that the situation might warrant the invocation of emergency provisions like Articles 355 or 356.

Non-Imposition of President’s Rule

• Political Considerations: Despite the severity of the crisis, President’s rule (Article 356) has not been imposed. This has raised questions about whether political factors are influencing the Centre’s response.

Application of Article 355

• Central Action: The Centre has been intervening under Article 355, which obligates it to protect the state and ensure that it functions constitutionally.
• Criticism: Critics argue that the actions taken so far may not be adequate given the scale of the crisis. The use of Article 355 highlights the need for more decisive interventions to restore order.

Judicial Perspectives on Articles 355 and 356

Historical Misuse

• Ambedkar’s Vision: Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, one of the key framers of the Constitution, hoped that Articles 355 and 356 would rarely be used and remain “dead letters.”
• Misuse of Article 356: However, in practice, Article 356 has been frequently misused, often leading to the dismissal of state governments for political reasons under the pretext of law and order breakdowns.

1. R. Bommai Case (1994)

• Landmark Judgement: This Supreme Court case put significant restrictions on the misuse of Article 356. The Court ruled that President’s rule should only be applied in cases of genuine constitutional breakdown, not merely law and order issues.
• Judicial Review: The Court also emphasized that any imposition of President’s rule is subject to judicial review to prevent political misuse.

Expansion of Article 355

• Broader Interpretation: Initially, Article 355 was seen as narrowly linked to the use of Article 356. However, in various Supreme Court cases, such as Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998) and Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), the Court expanded the interpretation of Article 355, allowing the Centre to take a broader range of actions to protect state governance.

Recommendations for Article 355 and Article 356

Several commissions have provided recommendations on the cautious use of Articles 355 and 356.

Sarkaria Commission (1987)

• Caution in Use: The Commission recommended that Article 356 be used sparingly and only in rare cases when all other options for resolving the crisis in a state have been exhausted.

National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) and Punchhi Commission (2010)

• Article 355’s Role: These commissions emphasized that Article 355 imposes a duty on the Centre to take necessary actions to protect states.
• Localised Emergency: The Punchhi Commission proposed that emergency provisions under Articles 355 and 356 could be applied in localized areas (such as districts) instead of imposing President’s rule across the entire state.

Difference Between President’s Rule and National Emergency

Conclusion

The ongoing violence in Manipur has brought renewed attention to the debate on Centre-State relations and the use of emergency provisions.

Article 355 has been invoked, but the absence of Article 356, despite the severity of the crisis, has raised concerns about the adequacy of the Centre’s response.

While these constitutional provisions are designed to address such crises, they must be applied judiciously, respecting the delicate balance between central intervention and state autonomy.