Centre Needs To Walk The Talk On Respect For States And Federalism

The political crises in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand have shaken the democratic conscience of many. Can political defections of individual members bring down an elected government without invoking the anti-defection law? Does the central government have the right to interfere in such matters of the state? And most importantly, have the principles of federalism been manipulated and threatened? 

The situations in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand find their footings with rebel leaders defecting at the behest of the party in power at the center, resurrecting the Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram syndrome. This phrase draws inspiration from the political legacy of a Haryana legislator, Gaya Lal, who defected thrice in a single fortnight. To restrict such political convenience and to instill political discipline, the anti-defection law was passed in 1985. This law has evolved over time to disqualify from the legislative house any member who defies the party whip or defects from the party on whose ticket he/she got elected. 

The anti-defection law applies only if less than two-third of the elected members of a political party of a legislative house defect to another political party. As per the law, the decision of the Speaker or Chairman of the House, to disqualify such defecting members is final. The Speaker is usually a member of the ruling party/coalition and normally uses his/her discretion to concur with the party leadership and maintain the political status quo. The evil of political defections by legislators on the allurement of power, position and money violates the oath of office and the trust of the people.

When the support of rebel leaders proves insufficient, central governments have often resorted to misusing the provisions of Article 356 by imposing President's Rule in the state. The turmoil in Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarkhand and numerous examples in the past are vivid illustrations of this fallback mechanism employed by governments at the centre. 
 With the basis of exercising the provision resting on the "breakdown of constitutional machinery", a term undefined and open to interpretation, Article 356 leaves large scope for misuse. Do political defections qualify as a breakdown of constitutional machinery? Does political horse-trading undertaken on the allurement of money, which is commonplace in such situations, qualify as a breakdown of constitutional machinery? Or should criminal cases be filed against such members instead? Don't instances of large-scale violence such as the Jat agitation in Haryana also bring into question the inability of a state government to administer? 

Advertisement

Article 356 is a colonial relic that is rooted in British India's Constitution, the Government of India Act of 1935. It allowed a provisional Governor, appointed by the British Raj in Delhi, to assume powers of a provisional government if administration could not be carried on within the provisions of the Act. Surprisingly, without much alteration, the Article was copy-pasted into the Indian Constitution and it continues to govern us till date. 

The transition of the political landscape in the country from the period of "one dominant party system" to the emergence of a multi-party system in the late 1960s triggered the frequent use of Article 356. As the largest democracy in the world that prides itself on conducting free and fair elections, the presence and the frequent use of Article 356 in the Constitution has always been critiqued and rightly so. A provision that vests absolute powers with the centre and directly contradicts the essence of federalism needs to be questioned. 

Advertisement

The Governor's discretion in calling for a floor test or reporting on the breakdown of the constitutional machinery can make or break of a state government. The Governor, in consultation with the centre, has unilateral power in determining and in reporting the law and order situation in the state and, therefore, calling for intervention by the centre. The imposition of President's Rule on the recommendations of an unelected Governor to overthrow an elected government threatens our democratic ideology. 
 India is one of the few federal governments that allows for the dismissal of elected governments and exercises such an undemocratic provision liberally. Since 1950, there have been 113 instances of democratically elected state governments being dismissed by the central government. Till date, the Article has been exclusively used to dismiss state governments different from the party at the centre, with President's Rule in Punjab in 1983 being the exception to the rule. The most disastrous consequences of this draconian law was the imposition of President's Rule in Kashmir in 1985 and the subsequent control in the affairs of the state by the Congress-led Central Government. The withdrawal of Congress support from the democratically-elected minority government headed by Ghulam Mohammad Shah not only toppled the state government but also eroded the secular ideals of Kashmir, which led to the start of terrorism in the state. 

The NDA government since coming to power has advocated for financial federalism through greater fiscal devolution and political federalism by unequivocally assuring against the misuse of Article 356. These will become token measures if the government doesn't walk the talk soon. 

Advertisement

The landmark judgment of SR Bommai vs Union of India established the parameters for judicial review on the imposition of President's Rule. The High Court of Uttarakhand unambiguously dismissed President's Rule in the state and held the NDA government accountable for "introducing chaos". It most importantly brought into context the cynicism bred in the democratic system and in the tenets of federalism.

With the centre now moving the case to the Supreme Court, the rulings of the apex court on the Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand crises will establish the precedent for federalism in the coming years. 

Advertisement

The objectives on which the decentralization of powers were instituted in the Indian constitution were to protect the multiplicity of traditions, religions and languages, and safeguard the federal fabric of our nation. It envisaged the unity of the country, while giving due importance to autonomy of local issues and local governments. The misguided, callous and liberal use of the draconian Article 356 threatens the process of democracy and shakes the principles on which the constitution was founded. 

There is also a need to ensure that the Speaker works on established laws and rules. Parliamentary practices are mired in convention, and interpretation of the law is left to the Speaker of the House. It is routinely found that Speakers subvert and counter interpret rules to suit their own needs. This has been evidenced in the most routine day-to-day functioning of the House. There is a need to ensure that parliamentary rules are established and clarified so that discretion cannot be used to subvert democracy. It is time for the political class to wake up!

Advertisement

(Kalikesh Narayan Singh Deo is a second-time sitting Member of Parliament from Bolangir in Odisha and a prominent leader of the Biju Janata Dal.)

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. The facts and opinions appearing in the article do not reflect the views of NDTV and NDTV does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same.