Why no to President's rule?
Hyderabad: The whole State or for that matter the entire nation was agog with rumours on Saturday that President's rule was being imposed on Andhra Pradesh. Popular National TV channels were followed up by local TV channels with scrolling for the whole day that "Central rule was being imposed on Andhra Pradesh.'
It was with a kind of authenticity that they were running the scrolling. Some of the senior scribes in the Secretariat even heard telling the Chief Minister's Office staff to get ready for pack off. No one knows how the rumour emanated. The Chief Minister going to Delhi or being summoned to Delhi along with Deputy Chief Minister and PCC president and other leaders were known two days ago.
Even the Governor being called to Delhi for ascertaining his opinion on the latest situation in the state was also known to everyone. The Central Rule will not in any way alter the situation. Unless there is an amicable and acceptable solution and unless the agitators are taken into confidence, there is no likelihood of the stir being called off.
How the rumour mills work overtime to get authenticity to their version was very interesting. They say that in 1973 President's rule was imposed during P V Narasimha Rao's government when the Jai Andhra agitation was at its peak. After the Central rule was imposed the agitation subsided and H C Sarin, the Chief Adviser to Governor Kandubhai Desai, was able to bring the situation under control.
After 11 months of President's rule, Jalagam Vengal Rao took over as the Chief Minister and he could ably administer the state.No such situation is prevailing now. There is a democratically elected government enjoying majority in the Assembly. There is an agitation going on for the creation of a separate Telangana state.
Telangana employees in the state government, APSRTC, Singareni etc are on strike. The Central Government is holding discussion on the Telangana problem at the highest level and even the Prime Minister is fully seized of the matter. The Congress Core Committee, high command, senior ministers are all looking into the matter and holding parleys with the state leaders. They are trying their best to thrash out a solution.
It remains a fact that the power situation is grim with the continued strike of the Singareni Collieries for the third week. There is acute shortage of coal supply to any of the Thermal power units in the state, including NTPC Ramagundem and Simhachalam. Power supply even to other states are badly affected from these Central grids.
However, the state government is trying to get coal from other sources and purchasing power from outside to cope with the situation. Private and contract buses along with autos are taking care of bus commuters in the city and districts. However, business and industrial production are affected because of frequent bandhs and the three-day power holiday to industrial units.
However, there is no situation that calls for imposing the President's rule in the state.Both the AICC General Secretary Mr Ghulam Nabi Azad and Chief Minister Kiran Kumar Reddy questioned the media person about the conditions in which the President's rule could be imposed. Let us examine the conditions.
Conditions for Central Rule
President's rule (or Central Rule) is the term used in India when a state legislature is dissolved or suspended and the state is placed under direct Federal rule. President's rule is enabled by Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which gives the Central Government the authority to impose President's rule in any state if there has been failure of the constitutional machinery in the state.
It is called President's rule because the President of India governs the state instead of the Council of Ministers who is answerable to the elected legislature. The state Governor is the delegated executive authority on behalf of the Central Government.
The Governor normally appoints advisor(s), who are retired civil servants, to help him in the administration. Since the Governor is appointed by the President of India on the advice of the Central government, in practice policies are controlled by the ruling party at the Centre.
Conditions
The Supreme Court's ruling in the Bommai case highlighted clearly the many and stringent conditions for the valid exercise of the power under Article 356. They are:
(1) Whether conditions, in fact, exist objectively which render it impossible to carry on the governance of the state in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution; even so, this power must be used sparingly and so as not to disturb the Federal balance of power between the Union and states since federalism is part of the unamenable basic structure of the Constitution.
This condition is only partially fulfilled. It is a fact that the present government is not functioning in its full steam what with the ministers not attending their peshis for weeks together. But the chief ministers and the bureaucracy are able to run the administration, though not very competently.
(2) The State Assembly must not be dissolved before both Houses of Parliament have approved the proclamation made by the President under Article 356. But the State Assembly could be kept in suspended animation as was done in 1973.
(3) Even after such approval it will be open to the courts to consider independently whether in fact conditions so existed as to warrant exercise of the power under Article 226; judicial review, which is also part of the basic structure of the Constitution, is available in respect of Article 356.
It can be exercised by the High Court and the Supreme Court. Once a prima facie case is made out, the burden of proof will lie on the Government of India to justify the action.
(4) The court will be entitled to requisition the records from the government containing the material on the basis of which the Council of Ministers of the Government of India tendered the advice to the President.
(5) The courts have the power to order an interim stay on the exercise of power under Article 356.
(6) Last, the courts have the power, if the proclamation is struck down as unconstitutional, to order the revival of the dissolved State Assembly and restoration of the dismissed state government.
In Andhra Pradesh, as of now, no such situation exists. The law and order situation is under control of the state government to a large extent. There is neither any constitutional breakdown nor the ruling party has lost the majority. The agitation in Telangana is absolutely peaceful.
And even if the Central rule is imposed. the situation will continue to be the same as the Telangana activists are in no mood to accept anything short of their basic demand for a separate state. The Centre is holding consultations at the highest level to thrash out an amicable solution involving all stakeholders. Hence the rumour of a President's rule being imposed on the state is baseless.
Change of government will not solve the problem
Unless there is an amicable and acceptable solution there is no likelihood of the stir being called off.
The state government enjoys majority support
The agitation is peaceful and non-violent
Strike by employees is no reason for imposing central rule
The state government is able to maintain law & order in spite of the agitation entering the 27th day
The government is able to supply power with minimum cuts even though
Singareni workers are on strike and there is acute shortage of coal
Central rule is imposed under Article 356 of the Constitution under the following conditions
* If it is impossible to carry on the governance of the state in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution
* Even so, this power must be used sparingly and so as not to disturb the Federal balance of power between the Union and states
News Posted: 10 October, 2011
|
