Arunachal Pradesh and its recent political turmoil
Arunachal Pradesh is ruled by the Congress government. The congress formed the government for the eighth time in the state in 2014. Arunachal Pradesh plunged into political turmoil after 21 of 47 Congress MLAs rebelled against the party. President’s rule was imposed in Arunachal Pradesh on January 26 after that development. The president’s rule was imposed on the grounds of political instability and constitutional breakdown. This will be Arunachal Pradesh’s second term under president’s rule. It was last imposed between November 1979 and January 1980.
The Governor’s role in dismissing the elected government and the imposition of President’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh has once again brougt back the issue of Centre-State relations and federalism to the fore.
Recently, Dissident Congress leader Kalikho Pul was sworn in as the ninth chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh. Earlier, the Supreme Court rejected the plea of Congress leaders seeking an interim direction to pave the party to prove majority on the floor. Pul has support of 19 dissident Congress MLAs, 11 of BJP MLAs from outside and two independents.
President’s rule in India- An analysis
Since independence, the number of times the President’s rule has been imposed in the states is 124. Article 356 has been used and misused by successive governments irrespective of their political ideology. The only states in which the President’s rule has not been imposed till date are Chattisgarh, Uttrakhand and Telangana.
According to Article 356 of the constitution, President’s rule can be imposed in a state “if a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the constitution”. Article 356 carries the marginal heading “Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States”. But neither clause (1) nor for that matter any other clause in the article employs the expression “failure of constitutional machinery”. It is also mandatory for the President to be satisfied about breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state.
The failure of the State government to function as per the constitution leads to imposition of president’s rule. Other factors may include law and order problem, government losing majority in the assembly, indecisive outcome of elections, insurgency, defection, no alternate claimant to form government, break up of coalition etc.
Governor’s role and discretion
Generally, the Governor’s report forms the basis of imposition of President’s rule. However, the provision also says that the president can take such a decision even “otherwise”(even in the absence of governor’s report). Governor while preparing the report need not go by the advice of the state cabinet and can act on his/her own discretion. On the other hand, the President must act as per the advice of the Union Cabinet.
Implications of President’s rule
The state comes under the direct control of the Central government. The authority to administer the state shifts to the Governor. The assembly ceases to function and is kept under suspended animation (temporary cessation).Once imposed, President’s rule must be approved by Parliament within a period of two months. It can’t last for more than six months unless its extension is approved by Parliament.
SR Bommai case
The landmark Supreme Court verdict on the S.R. Bommai case in 1994 ensured that the article has been used sparingly, or in exceptional circumstances. The contention that president’s rule was being misused by parties in power was accepted, with the court issuing strict guidelines on its imposition. This judgement is called the Bommai judgement after the former Karnataka Chief Minister S R Bommai whose government was dismissed by the Centre and the President’s rule was imposed.
Bihar case
Bihar Assembly was dissolved in the year 2005. The Supreme Court in January 2006 declared the dissolution as null and void in the Buta Singh case. It held that the governor’s report could not be taken at face value and must be verified by the council of ministers before being used as the basis for imposing President’s rule. The “drastic and extreme action under Article 356” cannot be justified on whims and fancies of the governor and the council of ministers should not accept it as “gospel truth”.
Position of Arunachal Pradesh with respect to centre
Arunachal Pradesh has no appreciable funds at its disposal and has to entirely depend on the Centre for funding. Arunachal Pradesh despite being the largest Northeastern state in terms of area has only two Lok Sasha constituencies-Arunachal East and Arunachal West- and thus has limited ability to play a major role in influencing the national policy and affairs at the centre. Union Minister for Home, Kiren Rijiju, was elected from Arunachal West constituency.
Implications
Arunachal Pradesh shares borders with Bhutan, China and Myanmar stretching up to 1630 km. Moreover, China is claiming its entire 83,743 sq. km territory. Arunachal and Sikkim are the only two Northeast states that have not witnessed home-grown insurgency, although Naga underground outfits are active in some places like Tirap, Changlang districts of Arunachal Pradesh.
Youth of Arunachal are never attracted to insurgency and terrorism despite the fact that Northeast region being a hotbed of militancy. The ongoing political turmoil in Arunachal Pradesh has the potential to disturb the faith in democratic system.
