There would be many ways to tame an errant state Govt.
The Article 356 can be used and has been used multiple times to topple/dismiss state governments. In such situations, President's Rule could be imposed and by virtue of that the central Govt can take control of the particular state's administrative machinery.
Apparently, the BJP central leadership is reluctant to impose President's Rule because that they give Mamata Banerjee some chance to claim sympathy votes.
According to Mamata's chief rival and LoP West Bengal Suvendu Adhikari, "even Mamata wants President's Rule ... but we want her to continue keep the post and then face election".
There are other Constitutional remedies too.
-- Article 311 of the Indian Constitution provides crucial safeguards to civil servants against arbitrary dismissal, removal, or reduction in rank.
It mandates that no employee can be dismissed by an authority lower than their appointing authority. However, clause 2 of the same Article says -- An inquiry to punish an errant official is not required if:
the employee is dismissed based on conduct that led to a conviction on a criminal charge.
The authority empowered to dismiss/remove is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, with reasons recorded in writing.
National Security: The President or Governor is satisfied that conducting an inquiry is not in the interest of the security of the State.
The Election Commission has already handed over the investigation into the gherao of seven judicial officers involved in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise in Malda to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Things are murky on who and what kinds of power-play were involved in encouraging the protesters or the wrong doers. Hence strict government actions are not ruled out.
The law, however, says the decision to skip an inquiry under the exceptions can be challenged in a court of law or tribunal (like CAT), as the satisfaction of the authority is subject to judicial review to ensure it is not arbitrary.
The more stringent action is possible under Article 355.
This provision of law mandates the Union Government to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbances, ensuring state governments operate according to the Constitution.
It acts as a safety valve to maintain federal integrity, often serving as a precursor to Article 356 (President's Rule).
The Article 355 says -- It is the duty of the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance.
Article 355 acts as a corrective measure to protect states and guide them to follow the constitution.
Article 356 is a punitive, ultimate measure to handle the failure of constitutional machinery.
The Article 355 is invoked in instances of internal disturbance or failure to follow central directions.
In this case, EC's directions can be regarded as mandatory orders for a poll-bound state Govt to follow.
Article 356 is invoked when the state government cannot/does not function according to the Constitution.
Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee was first to set the cat among the pigeons by speculating why CV Ananda Bose, her state’s governor since November 2022, had resigned all of a sudden.
Her party leaders go one step further. “The BJP always wanted to impose President’s rule in the state,” claimed Mohammad Tauseef Rahman, TMC spokesperson.
The new Governor R N Ravi is a tough man and as Governor in Nagaland and Tamil Nadu he has courted enough controversies.
In 2016, the state of Uttarakhand was placed under President's Rule by the Modi Govt within two months of dismissal of the Arunachal Pradesh government.
Dismissing Harish Rawat's regime in Dehradun under Article 356 of the Constitution appears to be yet another addition to the catalogue of constitutional sins committed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government at the Centre.
By doing so, it was largely seen that the Modi Govt also followed the footsteps of the Congress reign at the centre.
The provisions of the Article 356 -- giving sweeping powers to the central government -- is essentially aimed at restoring constitutional propriety after breakdown of governance in a state, Justice V R Krishna Iyer had once observed.
In 1992-93, the P V Narasimha Rao government at the Centre dismissed four BJP governments -- in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh -- following the demolition of Babri Masjid on December 6.
Even a government led by hardcore socialist Chandrashekhar at the Centre was no different. In 1990, it dismissed the DMK ministry of M. Karunanidhi in Tamil Nadu, despite lack of any adverse report from the state governor, to seek support from Rajiv Gandhi's Congress which was wooing Karunanidhi's rival, J Jayalalitha of the AIADMK.
It also had dismissed the Mahanta Govt in Assam.
ends
No comments:
Post a Comment