Role of Governors and President’s Rule

Central government and states have always been at odds over the role of Governors. Due to their appointment by the central government, Governors’ actions are often seen as interference by the central government with the operation of the states. Two different parties in power at the centre and in the state exacerbates the difficulty of the Governor’s role.

• Issue with Article 356 which provides for President’s rule in any State: 

  • It can be invoked if a situation arises where the provisions of this Constitution cannot be followed by the state’s government.
  • This results in the Union government taking over the State government.
  • Parliament must ratify the proclamation of the President.
  • It is possible to extend the president’s term until three years.
  • Article 356 has been used/misused more than 125 times, despite B.R. Ambedkar’s assurance that it would remain a dead letter.
  • It was almost always used for political reasons rather than a genuine breakdown of the states’ constitutional machinery.
  • Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi invoked Article 356 27 times, the majority of the time to depose majority governments based on political stability, a lack of clear mandate, or withdrawal of support, among other reasons.
  • When the Janata government formed the government for the first time in 1977, they removed nine state Congress governments in retaliation.

• Controversy: 

  • Upon recommendation of the Governor, the State assembly may be suspended or dissolved.
  • Sometimes State legislatures were excused in any event, when they had a greater part in the lawmaking body or without testing their larger part. For instance, in Kerala in 1959 and so on In some cases, the Supreme Court ruled that the constitutional validity of the decision to impose President’s rule can be examined. 
  • Abuse of Power by the Centre: The Governor’s position has been abused on numerous occasions, usually at the request of the ruling party at the Centre. In the majority of cases, the scheduling procedure has been the source of the issue.
  • Biassed Ideology: In several cases, the central government has appointed politicians and former bureaucrats as governors who identify with a specific political ideology. As seen in Karnataka and Goa, it is in violation of the constitution’s mandated neutral seat and appears to have resulted in bias.
  • Puppet Governors: Rajasthan’s governor was recently charged with violating the model code of conduct. His partisanship goes against the Constitution’s requirement that those in positions of power be nonpartisan. Derogatory terms like “agent of the Centre,” “puppet,” and “rubber stamps” are used to criticise state governors as a result of these incidents.
  • Favouring One Political Party Over Others: After an election, the governor’s discretionary powers to ask the leader of the largest party/alliance to form the government have frequently been used to favour one political party over another.
  • Power Abuse: A Governor’s request for President’s Rule (Article 356) in a state has not always been based on ‘objective material,’ but rather on the governor’s personal feelings.

• Sarkaria Commission: 

• The Central government appointed a three-member Commission on Centre-State Relations in 1983, with R.S. Sarkaria, a retired Supreme Court judge, as its chairman. Shri B. Sivaraman and Dr. S.R. Sen were the committee’s other members.

• The Commission will examine and review the current arrangements between the Union and States in terms of powers, functions, and responsibilities in all spheres, and make any necessary changes or recommendations. It was given one year to complete its work at first, but the deadline was extended four times.
• The report was submitted in January 1988.
• There are 247 recommendations spread across 19 chapters in the report.

Demands for New States

Linguistic States:

• In addition to creating a pan-Indian unity, the national movement also activated unity based on shared language, region, and culture.
• It was decided that as far as possible states would be created based on common cultural and linguistic identity. 
• It led to the demand for the creation of linguistic States after Independence. 

The States Reorganisation Commission: It was set up in December 1953 and recommended the creation of linguistic States, at least for the major linguistic groups. There was a reorganization of some states in 1956.

• In 1960: Gujarat and Maharashtra were created.
• In 1966: Punjab and Haryana were separated from each other. 
• In 2000: Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar were divided to create three new States: Chhattisgarh, Uttarakhand and Jharkhand respectively to meet the demands for a separate state in addition to enhancing administrative efficiency.
• In 2014: As a result of dividing Andhra Pradesh, Telangana was formed.
• Some regions and groups are still struggling for separate Statehood like Vidarbha in Maharashtra.

Conclusion

The president’s rule has an impact on the nation’s federal structure, essentially turning it into a unitary one while attempting to protect the nation’s and people’s interests.

Although the suspension of fundamental rights has been repeatedly attempted to be justified, we believe that they are the most basic to the residents’ very existence in a democracy.

Even with the safeguards enacted by the 44th Amendment Act, there is still a risk of unjust violations of fundamental rights.