President's Actions During State Emergency Open To Scrutiny: SC

Relevance: GS2 - Indian Constitution—historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure. Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein.

(Source: The Hindu, 12/12/2023)

Click here for Daily Current Affairs

Why in the news?

• Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that the declaration of State Emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution and the subsequent actions of the President must have a reasonable nexus.
• The ruling came in a case challenging the President's actions regarding the imposition of President's Rule in Jammu and Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370.

What has the Supreme Court ruled on the President’s powers during a State Emergency?

• The Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of President’s rule in a state and the subsequent actions of the President should have a reasonable nexus.
  • The exercise of power by the President under Article 356 must have a reasonable nexus to the object of the Proclamation.
• The Supreme Court laid down ground rules to assess whether the actions or exercise of power by the Parliament or President during the emergency period were mala fide or not.
• The Court claimed that the onus was on the person challenging the actions of the President to prima facie establish if they were a mala fide or extraneous exercise of power.
  • In case, a prima facie case was made out, the onus would then shift to the Union to justify that the exercise of power had a reasonable nexus with the object of the proclamation.
• The Chief Justice opined that the power of the Parliament extended beyond mere lawmaking to include executive action as well in a state that was under President’s rule.
  • Neither the President nor the Parliament would be restricted by the absence of competence when assuming legislative powers of the State legislature following the declaration of Article 356.
  • However, the actions of Parliament, which assumed the role of the state legislature were subject to judicial review, where the court could determine if the exercise of the constitutional power of the state by Parliament had a reasonable nexus with the objective of the proclamation.
  • Further, the court claimed that the exercise of power by the President for the everyday administration of the State was not ordinarily subject to judicial review as it could lead to chaos and uncertainty.

How was it applied to the Kashmir issue?

• That court opined that petitioners could question whether the object of the President, while declaring State emergency on the ground of failure of constitutional machinery was to abrogate the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and bifurcate the state.
• The Court referenced the verdict of the Supreme Court in the SR Bommai vs Union of India case to validate the President’s actions in J&K i.e the abrogation of Article 370 while the state of Jammu and Kashmir was under President’s Rule.
  • The five-judge bench unanimously upheld the power of the President to abrogate Article 370 of the Constitution and reaffirmed that the President could unilaterally issue a notification that Article 370 ceases to exist.
  • The Chief Justice claimed that no material relief could be given even if the court had found that the Proclamation could not have been issued under Article 356 since President’s Rule was revoked in the state on October 31st 2019.

What is the President's Rule?

• President’s Rule or State Emergency or Constitutional Emergency is when the Union government assumes control of the administration of the state.
• Constitutional provisions:
  • Article 355: The Centre is responsible for ensuring that the governance of the state is in line with the Constitution. If the state's constitutional machinery malfunctions, the Center assumes this role and assumes control of the state's administration by invoking Article 356.
  • Article 356: The President may issue a proclamation to impose an emergency in a state if he is satisfied on receipt of a report from the Governor of the State, or otherwise, that a situation has arisen under which the Government of the State cannot be carried on smoothly.
• When can it be proclaimed: A State Emergency can be invoked on two grounds - one mentioned in Article 356 and one mentioned in Article 365.
  • Article 356: If the President determines that a situation has developed that prevents a state's administration from continuing in conformity with the Constitution
  • Article 365: The President may declare that a situation has developed in which the state’s administration cannot be carried out in accordance with the Constitution if a state refuses to follow or implement a directive from the Centre.
• Consequences of President's rule:
  • The Governor carries out the administration of the state on behalf of the President.
  • He/she is assisted by the state's Chief Secretary and other advisors they can appoint.
  • The President may declare that the state legislature's powers would be exercised by Parliament or dissolve the State Legislative Assembly or place it under suspension.
  • However, the President is not authorized to assume the powers of the High Court or suspend any constitutional provisions related to it.
• Duration of a state emergency: The imposition of President’s Rule in a state requires parliamentary approval.
  • The proclamation of President's rule must be approved in both Houses of Parliament within two months through a simple majority.
  • The proclamation ceases to exist after six months from the date of issue.
  • However, its life can be extended by six months each, up to a maximum of three years following which the normal constitutional machinery must be restored.
  • The 44th Amendment (1978) introduced a new provision restraining the power of Parliament to extend a proclamation under Article 356 beyond one year.
• Revocation:
  • A Proclamation under Article 356 may be revoked or changed by a subsequent Proclamation.
  • It can be revoked by the President only on his own.
  • It also stands revoked if not approved by any House of Parliament (even before the two months) and after six months if not approved by Parliament.
• Is judicial review applicable?
  • The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 had stated that the imposition of President’s Rule could not be contested in court on any grounds.
  • However, the 44th Amendment Act repealed this clause, making it open to judicial review.

To learn more about State Emergency, click the link.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the exercise of the President’s powers during a State Emergency has underlined the continuing influence of the SR Bommai judgment in determining the balance of power between the Centre and states and the autonomy of states.

(*Click this link to read prelims specific weekly current affairs articles)

FAQs

MCQs

Question: Which of the following is/are the exclusive power(s) of Lok Sabha?

1. To ratify the declaration of Emergency
2. To pass a motion of no-confidence against the Council of Ministers
3. To impeach the President of India

Select the correct answer using the code given below: (UPSC CSE 2022)

(a) 1 and 2

(b) 2 only

(c) 1 and 3

(d) 3 only

Question: Which of the following are the discretionary powers given to the Governor of a State?

1. Sending a report to the President of India for imposing the President’s rule
2. Appointing the Ministers
3. Reserving certain bills passed by the State Legislature for consideration of the President of India
4. Making the rules to conduct the business of the State Government

Select the correct answer using the code given below. (UPSC CSE 2014)

(a) 1 and 2 only

(b) 1 and 3 only

(c) 2, 3, and 4 only

(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4