How Emergency Provisions Impact Centre-State Relations

How Emergency Provisions Impact Centre-State Relations

Sub : Polity

Sec: Constitution

Why in  News

The recent surge in violence in Manipur has reignited the debate on Centre-State relations, particularly the use of emergency provisions by the Centre. The situation has raised questions about the implementation of Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, which govern Centre-State relations during crises.

The Federal Structure of Governance in India

India follows a federal system of governance where both the Centre and the States hold their own powers and responsibilities. The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution divides these powers between the Union and the States. Maintaining law and order is primarily the responsibility of the States under this federal structure.

Emergency Provisions in the Constitution

The Emergency Provisions empower the Central Government to address abnormal situations effectively.

These provisions were adopted from the Government of India Act, 1935, while the suspension of Fundamental Rights during an emergency was borrowed from the Weimar Constitution of Germany.

The primary purpose of these provisions is to protect the sovereignty, unity, integrity, security, and the democratic political system of India.

The Constitution provides for three types of emergencies:

National Emergency- Art352

Constitutional Emergency (President’s Rule)-  Art 356

Financial Emergency- Art 360

The emergency provisions are outlined in Part XVIII of the Indian Constitution, specifically through Articles 355 and 356.

Article 355

Article 355 outlines the Union’s responsibility to protect States from external aggression and internal disturbances.

It mandates that the Central Government ensures the governance of each State aligns with the provisions of the Constitution. This article empowers the Centre to take necessary actions to safeguard States from any threat, whether internal or external.

Article 355 is a preventive mechanism to avoid the breakdown of the State’s constitutional machinery.

The article was invoked during instances of internal disturbances.

The Supreme Court has expanded the interpretation of Article 355, emphasizing that the Centre has a duty to protect the Constitution.

It provides the legal basis for invoking Article 356 if the failure of constitutional machinery occurs.

Article 355 has been referred to in cases like State of Rajasthan vs Union of India (1977) and Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs Union of India (1998), where its scope was examined.

Sarkaria Commission and Punchhi Commission recommended that Article 355 be used sparingly and only in extreme situations.

Article 356

Article 356 grants the President of India the power to intervene when the constitutional machinery of a State fails to function in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This is commonly referred to as the imposition of President’s Rule in a State. It is one of the key emergency provisions designed to safeguard the governance and constitutional integrity of States.

Parliament may exercise the powers of the State Legislature during President’s Rule.

The proclamation must be approved by Parliament within two months and can last for up to six months, extendable to a maximum of three years.

The S.R. Bommai case (1994) imposed judicial safeguards to prevent arbitrary use of Article 356.

Judicial review is allowed, and the court can nullify an unconstitutional proclamation.

President’s Rule cannot extend beyond three years unless a National Emergency is in effect.

Expanding the Scope of Article 355

Over the years, the scope of Article 355 has been broadened through various Supreme Court judgments. Initially, the State of Rajasthan vs Union of India (1977) judgment interpreted Article 355 narrowly, linking it directly to the justification for using Article 356. However, subsequent rulings such as:

Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs Union of India (1998),

Sarbananda Sonowal vs Union of India (2005),

H.S. Jain vs Union of India (1997)

Expanded the scope of Article 355, allowing the Centre to take all necessary constitutional and statutory actions to protect the State and ensure its governance complies with the Constitution.

Expert Recommendations on the Use of Emergency Provisions

Several commissions have reviewed the working of Articles 355 and 356:

• Sarkaria Commission (1987)
• National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002),
• Punchhi Commission (2010).

These commissions have emphasized that:

• Article 355 imposes not just a duty but also grants the Centre powers to act in the interest of the State.
• President’s Rule under Article 356 should be invoked only as a last resort and in cases of utmost gravity.

About Sarkaria Commission:

• Established in 1983 to review Centre-State relations.
• Chaired by Justice R.S. Sarkaria.
• Focused on improving federal relations and reducing friction between the Centre and States.
• Recommended rare use of Article 356 and greater consultation with States on legislative matters.
• Suggested the establishment of a permanent Inter-State Council.
• Emphasized cooperative federalism and strengthening decentralization.
• Advocated for the financial autonomy of States and a balanced distribution of power.

Punchhi Commission:

• Formed in 2007, chaired by Justice M.M. Punchhi.
• Set up to review Centre-State relations after Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations.
• Proposed clear guidelines for imposing Article 356 to prevent misuse.
• Recommended creating a mechanism for resolving Centre-State disputes
• Emphasized the need for financial devolution and empowerment of local bodies.
• Suggested measures to enhance the role of States in international treaties that impact their interests.
• Called for a better-defined role of the Governor to prevent undue interference by the Centre.

About National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002):

• Established in 2000, chaired by Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah.
• Formed to review the Constitution’s working and suggest changes for improving its effectiveness.
• Recommended limiting the use of Article 356 and ensuring it’s invoked only in rare situations.
• Advocated for greater autonomy to States and a more federal structure of governance.
• Suggested reforms to strengthen Parliamentary accountability and improve the functioning of coalition governments.
• Proposed changes to ensure better separation of powers among the executive, legislature, and judiciary.
• Emphasized judicial reforms, such as faster resolution of cases and establishing a National Judicial Commission.