Courts Must Intervene Promptly When Article 356 Is Misused to Impose President’s Rule in States, Asserts Sidharth Luthra
(Judicial Quest News Network)
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra recently highlighted a persistent and troubling trend in Indian governance: the frequent misuse of Article 356, which empowers the imposition of President’s Rule in states. Speaking at an event commemorating the 75th anniversary of the Indian Constitution, Luthra warned that the abuse of this provision has been a recurring issue for the past 75 years, with instances occurring nearly every year. He underscored the need for courts to act decisively and without delay to prevent the central government from exploiting this power to impose its rule on states.
Luthra’s call for judicial speed was clear. He argued that courts must intervene promptly whenever there is an abuse of Article 356, stressing that any delay in judicial action only prolongs the misuse of power. According to Luthra, over the last seven decades, President’s Rule has been invoked repeatedly, with two instances per year on average. He contended that this continued misuse demands urgent corrective measures, including a swift judicial response that would send a strong message to the central government: that it cannot act with impunity in curtailing state autonomy.
The senior advocate also pointed out that Article 356’s vague language, particularly the phrase “failure of constitutional machinery,” allows for an expansive interpretation that could justify the imposition of President’s Rule on flimsy grounds. He emphasized the need for clearer legal definitions to prevent the abuse of this sweeping provision, arguing that it opens the door for arbitrary action.
In addition, Luthra discussed the role of governors, who, according to him, often act as tools of the central government, undermining the autonomy of state governments. He noted that governors’ interference in state matters often exacerbates the misuse of Article 356, reinforcing his belief that the proposal for directly elected governors should be revisited. Such a reform, he suggested, would reduce partisan interference and ensure that governors function in a more restrained, impartial manner.
On the issue of judicial review, Luthra acknowledged that while the courts have the authority to review the imposition of President’s Rule, their scrutiny is often limited. He argued that the courts must go beyond a superficial review of the circumstances and delve into the underlying reasoning for declaring a state of emergency. However, he also recognized the practical challenges in reversing such decisions, given the political realities and the fact that by the time a ruling is made, elections often alter the political landscape, rendering it difficult to restore the status quo.
Luthra’s critique of the judicial system’s handling of President’s Rule is grounded in the belief that timely and thorough intervention is essential to prevent the central government from exploiting its constitutional powers. His remarks underscore a need for more robust judicial action, clarity in the application of Article 356, and systemic reforms to prevent undue interference by governors in the functioning of state governments. Without these changes, Luthra warned, the potential for further abuse of power remains unchecked, threatening the balance of federalism in India.
