Draft Paper On Article 356 Recast Finds Little Support

The meeting of the Inter-State Councils standing committee yesterday was marked by a complete lack of unanimity on the proposals mooted to prevent misuse of Article 356.

Some chief ministers went to the extent of demanding that the draft circulated before the committee be revised.

The draft contains several suggestions to make the invocation of Article 356 difficult for the Centre. The participants, consisting mainly of non-Congress chief ministers affected by the provision in the past, openly aired their reservations on the proposals in the draft.

Union home minister Indrajit Gupta admitted after the meeting that the discussion was animated, and that several finer points had not been envisaged in the draft. He, however, said none of the chief ministers had demanded scrapping of the provisions. Gupta pointed out that the controversial article had been used 104 times in the past to dismiss state governments.

 

Yesterdays meeting was attended by Union law minister Ramakant Khalap, finance minister P Chidambaram, chief ministers N Chandrababu Naidu (Andhra Pradesh), P K Mahanta (Assam), J B Patnaik (Orissa), Maharashtra deputy chief minister Gopinath Munde and representatives of other states.

One of the proposals was that no government should be dismissed without being issued a show-cause notice. After the notice is served, the government should be given seven days to reply.

The Union government should act only after receiving the reply. Another proposal was that instead of the current practice of approving imposition of Presidents rule by a simple majority in Parliament, two-thirds majority of the members present and voting be made mandatory. The fate of the state Assembly concerned should be decided by Parliament.

However, the Orissa chief minister said a simple majority should be adequate.

He said the proposal for a two-thirds majority was not needed and it could be impracticable at times to get a resolution passed by two-thirds of the members when the ground realities in a state would necessitate imposition of central rule.

Patnaik said central intervention may be needed on account of the party in power failing to secure the confidence of the state Assembly or in the event of a breakdown of constitutional machinery. Therefore, the present provision contained in Article 356 for simple majority of each House should be retained without any amendment, he said.

According to another proposal, the presidential proclamation should include all material related to the action, including the show-cause notice and the reply of the government concerned.

This was opposed by Munde, who felt this may lead to disclosing material which may not be in public good.

After the meeting, Munde said the draft should be re-drafted and circulated well before the next meeting. Mahanta said there was no consensus on the provision in the article by which the Centre can bypass the Governor and dismiss a government.

What would be the fate of the Governor the eyes and ears of the Centre if the proposed show-cause notice is issued directly to the government concerned? Logically, he said, the Governor should resign.

Another proposal that did not find much favour at the meeting was the possibility of one-10th of MPs in each House requisitioning a special sitting, and disapproving the approval granted earlier for imposition of Presidents rule. The home minister admitted that the finer details of this too had not been worked out.

Deliberations at yesterdays meeting are to be placed before a full meeting of the Inter-State Council scheduled to be held before the monsoon session of Parliament begins on July 23. However, council sources said the next meeting was unlikely to concretise the proposals on Article 356, but would focus more on the devolution of financial powers to the states.