SC judgement delivered four decades ago counters President’s Rule in J&K

Subject :Polity

Section: Federalism

Introduction

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court delivered a one-page judgement 42 years ago, challenging the Centre’s claim of “breakdown of constitutional machinery” leading to President’s rule in Jammu and Kashmir.
The case is linked to former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi.

1971 Judgement

The verdict, given in Thiru K.N. Rajagopal versus M Karunanidhi, stated that
- when a Governor dissolves a State’s legislative Assembly and assumes State powers, the President can’t take over under Article 356 claiming “failure of constitutional machinery.”
- given by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri

Governor’s Actions in J&K and Abrogation of Article 370

In Jammu and Kashmir, the Governor dissolved the State legislative assembly on November 21, 2018, under Section 53(2) of the J&K Constitution.
Proclamation of President’s rule under Article 356 followed on December 19, 2018, approved by Parliament on January 3, 2019.
President’s rule extended for six months from July 3, 2019.
On August 5, 2019, the President introduced Article 367(4) to replace ‘Constituent Assembly of the State’ with ‘Legislative Assembly of the State‘ in the proviso to Article 370(3).
President declared Article 370’s cessation.
Parliament abolished Article 370 and reorganized Jammu and Kashmir.

Legal Arguments

argued that the President’s claim of “breakdown of constitutional machinery” was absurd when the Governor held State powers after dissolving the assembly.
Article 356 is not applicable when an assembly is dissolved as there’s no failure of constitutional machinery.
He referenced S.R. Bommai case, stating Article 356 aims to restore normalcy to a State, not eliminate it.

President’s Rule Explained:

Initiation: President’s Rule, known as a “State Emergency” or “Constitutional Emergency”, arises when state governance falters constitutionally.
Basis: Article 356 obliges the Centre to ensure state governance follows the Constitution; Article 365 empowers the President if a state fails to comply with the Centre’s directions.
Declaration: President can act on the governor’s report or independently under Article 356; Article 365 can be invoked if a state disregards the Centre’s directions.
Approval & Duration: Proclamation must be ratified by both Houses within 2 months; the initial period is 6 months, extendable up to 3 years with Parliament’s consent every 6 months.
Extensions: After 1 year, requires nationwide or state-level National Emergency and Election Commission’s certification of election impracticality. (44th Amendment Act of 1978 )
Ramifications: President obtains unique powers: taking over state functions, suspending legislature, and declaring the state’s powers vested in Parliament.
State Governance: Chief minister-led council is dissolved; the state governor administers aided by the chief secretary or appointed advisors.
Legislative Role: Parliament passes state bills and budgets; laws enacted by Parliament, President, or specified authorities persist even after revocation till state assembly repeals.

High Court & President’s Rule: The state high court’s role remains intact, unaffected by the imposition of the President’s Rule.