From President’s Rule to bypassing inquiries for errant officials, the Centre has powerful — and controversial — tools to confront West Bengal’s ruling government.
By NIRENDRA DEV
KOLKATA, April 4, 2026 — With West Bengal headed into a high-stakes assembly election and the Mamata Banerjee government locked in open confrontation with the Election Commission, constitutional experts and political observers are increasingly asking: how far can the Centre go — and under which provisions?
Article 356, the nuclear option that imposes President’s Rule, gets most of the attention. But two lesser-discussed constitutional instruments — Article 355 and Article 311(2) — may give the Union government significant leverage without the political cost of a full dismissal.
Why BJP Is Holding Back on Article 356
The Centre has the precedent, the legal authority, and arguably the political justification to invoke Article 356. It has been used dozens of times since Independence — most controversially by the P.V. Narasimha Rao government in 1992-93, which dismissed four BJP state governments in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh following the Babri Masjid demolition.
Even a socialist Chandrashekhar government dismissed the DMK ministry of M. Karunanidhi in Tamil Nadu in 1990 without an adverse governor’s report, purely for political leverage.
The Modi government itself imposed President’s Rule in Uttarakhand in 2016, dismissing the Harish Rawat government under Article 356 — a move widely criticised as a misuse of constitutional machinery.
Yet today, the BJP’s central leadership appears reluctant to pull that trigger in Bengal.
West Bengal Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari, Mamata Banerjee’s chief political rival, offered a pointed explanation.
“Even Mamata wants President’s Rule,” Adhikari claimed, “but we want her to continue to keep the post and then face election.” The BJP’s calculation: imposing President’s Rule hands Banerjee a sympathy narrative going into polls.
The Article 355 Pressure Valve
Less dramatic but potentially more surgical is Article 355, which mandates the Union government to protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbance, and to ensure state governments function in accordance with the Constitution.
 |
| Namo - Looking for right vaccination against 'appeasement' policy of Mamata |
Unlike Article 356 — which is punitive and terminates a state government — Article 355 functions as a corrective instrument and a constitutional warning shot. It can be invoked when a state government fails to follow central directions or when internal disturbances go unaddressed.
In the West Bengal context, the Election Commission’s directions to the state government — particularly around the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise — could legally be framed as mandatory constitutional obligations. Non-compliance, or active obstruction, could justify Article 355 invocation as a precursor to stronger action.
Article 311(2): The Bureaucracy Lever
Perhaps the sharpest immediate tool available is Article 311, which governs the dismissal and disciplinary proceedings of civil servants.
Clause 2 of Article 311 allows the government to bypass the mandatory inquiry process — a significant protection normally afforded to civil servants — in three specific circumstances: where the dismissal is based on conduct that resulted in a criminal conviction; where the competent authority records in writing that holding an inquiry is not reasonably practicable; or where the President or Governor certifies that an inquiry would be against the interest of state security.
The Election Commission has already referred the investigation into the gherao of seven judicial officers involved in the SIR exercise in Malda to the National Investigation Agency. With the NIA now in the picture and questions swirling over who orchestrated the obstruction, the use of Article 311(2) exceptions against errant state officials cannot be ruled out.
A critical safeguard remains, however: courts and tribunals including the Central Administrative Tribunal retain jurisdiction to review whether the authority’s satisfaction was genuine or arbitrary — meaning any action taken under the exceptions is subject to judicial scrutiny.
A New Governor, Old Controversies
The sudden resignation of Governor C.V. Ananda Bose drew immediate speculation from Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee herself. His replacement, R.N. Ravi — who courted significant controversy as Governor of both Nagaland and Tamil Nadu — signals that the Centre is not seeking a conciliatory figure in Raj Bhavan.
TMC spokesperson Mohammad Tauseef Rahman was direct: “The BJP always wanted to impose President’s Rule in the state.”
Whether through Article 355’s corrective pressure, Article 311’s bureaucratic leverage, or ultimately Article 356’s punitive force, the constitutional toolkit available to the Centre is formidable. The question is not whether the tools exist — it is whether the BJP calculates the political cost of using them before West Bengal votes.
As Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer once observed of Article 356, such sweeping central powers are “essentially aimed at restoring constitutional propriety after breakdown of governance in a state.”
The burden of proof — constitutional and political — remains on whoever invokes them.
No comments:
Post a Comment