ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Jurists stress need to retain Article 356

Though article 356 has been much abused and maligned for conferring on the centre the power to dismiss duly elected state governments, most eminent jurists stress the need to retain this constitutional provision in aid of national integrity.

Participating in a panel discussion on ''Article 356 -- Bommai and after'', organised by the Indian Law Institute here last evening, senior advocates, including former Delhi high court chief justice Rajinder Sachar and former attorney general Ashok Desai, said the article was often used for political purposes, to topple ''inconvenient governments''.

While this had increasingly led to calls for abrogation of Article 356, ''abolishing the provision would not be doing justice to the integrity of the Indian union,'' Desai said.

Senior advocate and former MP M C Bhandare also stressed how Article 356 had been used to bring back states from the brink of secession. ''This is one provision that has brought states back from the bullet to the ballot. There is no question of abrogating it,'' he said.

Senior counsel P P Rao also felt that instead of a discussion on Article 356, there was a need for a national debate on the mode of appointment of governors whose ''biased reports'' can result in dismissal of governments.

Justice Sachar differed, saying the role of Article 356 in protecting the country's integrity was being over-played. The central government had adequate authority under Article 352 and its defence powers to protect national unity, whereas Article 356 was used only for partisan ends, he said.

Recalling the dismissal of the Namboodiripad government in Kerala, among the first uses of Article 356, Justice Sachar said the state government was dismissed despite Pandit Nehru declaring that there was no breakdown of constitutional machinery and that the government would stay.

Pandit Nehru was overruled by his own party president and daughter Indira Gandhi who was for dismissing the Namboodiripad government.

''If Pandit Nehru could not resist the misuse of Article 356, no one else can,'' Justice Sachar said.

One possible way of preventing the misuse of Article 356 was to get a prior ratification from Parliament for its imposition in a state, he suggested. Also, the recommendation to the President should be for dissolution of the state assembly and not for suspended animation, Justice Sachar said.

''Putting the assembly in suspended animation is only an invitation to MLAs to defect to the other side,'' he said.

Desai felt that since there was often a ''political flavour'' to the Union cabinet's recommendation to the President to dismiss a state government, the President would have to be more careful when scrutinising such advice. The President has to apply his mind and caution the Union council of ministers against any misuse of the article, he said.

The Supreme Court ruling in the Bommai case, holding that the use of Article 356 was open to judicial review was welcome, senior counsel Rao said. Misuse of the article could be further prevented by ensuring that governors were not political appointees and were instead selected by an independent multi-member committee, he said.

Tell us what you think of this report