Uttarakhand under President's rule: A brief history of the use of Article 356

The SR Bommai judgment in 1989 laid down the conditions under which State governments may be dismissed, and mechanisms for that process

It was the Congress that was accused of initiating the ‘misuse’ of Article 356 or President’s rule and turning it into a national sport. It used all sorts of excuses: law and order (Kerala, 1959), corruption (Tamil Nadu in 1976 and Manipur in 1979), Babri Masjid (Himachal in 1992). To this, the NDA added misrule (Bihar in 1998, which was withdrawn). 

Now, it is once again the NDA’s turn. The Uttarakhand assembly has been put in suspended animation and the state put under central role. 

Where does the SR Bommai judgment come in?

In 1989 the SR Bommai government in Karnataka was dismissed after a section of his own party rebelled and withdrew support to Chief Minister SR Bommai. 

Bommai went to court and the Bommai judgment (1993) raised – and clarified – many points. The judgment was clear on at least one point: issues of majority or minority are "not a matter to be determined by the governor or for that matter anywhere else except the floor of the House". 

The judgment laid down the conditions under which State governments may be dismissed, and mechanisms for that process.

The judgment stated that the proclamation under Article 356(1) is not immune from judicial review. The Supreme Court or the high court can strike down the proclamation if it is found to be malafide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds. If the court strikes down the proclamation, it has the power to restore the dismissed government. Which means that if the Congress wins its arguments in the Supreme Court, the Rawat government could be restored. Moreover, Parliament will meet again for the resumed budget session. This is important, for the judgment also said:

The governor is like a person wearing two hats. With one, he is the head of the state government and with the other, he is a representative of the President. He is not a mere agent of the President.

President's proclamation should be placed in Parliament within two months and approved.

“Even after President’s rule kicks in, the Supreme Court can revive the Legislative Assembly, which will not be dissolved but kept in a state of suspended animation, if it finds the President’s proclamation unconstitutional,” says constitutional expert Subhash Kashyap. According to senior jurist Rajeev Dhavan, President's rule is not meant to decide moral and political skirmishes between parties about to fight elections. Second, even if the party in power is defeated in the House at the time elections are called, it must continue as caretaker. Rule from New Delhi is hardly the solution.