Welcome to IMS UNISON UNIVERSITY School of Law Fortnightly Inter-disciplinary Seminar Series-1 Wednesday, April 6 th, 2016

Topic: President Rule in Uttarakhand Politico- Legal Dimensions Prof(Dr.) M.K. Bhandari Director – International Initiatives Dean – School of Law IMS Unison University (IUU), Dehradun –

Fact Sheet State of Uttarakhand - Floor Test of Democracy  created on November 9, 2000  A highly volatile Governance system  4 Governments in 16 Years  8 CMs in 16 Years Note:- Except Shri Narayan Dutt Tiwari no Chief Minister could complete a full tenure of 5 years.

Sequence of Events  Passing of Appropriation Bill on 18 th March, 2016 in Uttarakhand Legislative assembly created great doubt as 9 defecting MLAs voted against the Bill  Governor asked CM to prove majority on the floor of Assembly on 28 th March, 2016  Speaker Disqualified 9 Defected Congress MLAs  Sting Operation of alleged dubious offers to Bagi MLAs captured in CD  Governor recommending imposition of President Rule  President Rule imposed on 27 th March, a day before floor test

Judicial Intervention  Single Judge Bench of High Court of Uttarakhand, without staying Notification of President Rule directed CM to prove majority in House on 31 st March, 2016  Also allowed 9 Disqualified MLAs to caste their votes in separate sealed cover  Creation of Constitutional crisis  Division bench, rightly stayed the decision of Single Bench on 30 th March, 2016 and listed the matter for next hearing on 7 th April, 2016

President Rule – Law and Practice Article 356 – Constitution of India  Empowers Central Government (through President of India) to impose President Rule in States if there is failure of Constitutional Machinery  Because Article 355 states that it is the Duty of the Union to ensure that the government in states are carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution

Use/Abuse/Misuse of Art. 356  From 1950 – 2016(March) – 111 times the President Rule has been imposed  First use in 1951 in Punjab Indira Gandhi(16 yrs)45 times Narshima Rao11 times Manmohan Singh10 times Nehru Era(16 yrs)7 times Rajiv Gandhi6 times Charan Singh4 times Chandra Shekar4 times Atal Bihari Vajpayee4 times Lal Bahadur Shastri2 times Deve Gowda2 times Narendra Modi2 times

Constitutional/Legal/Judicial Observations  B.R. Ambedkar(4 th August, 1949) – Article 356 would remain a ‘dead letter’  Sarkaria Commission(on Center-State relationship) in its report (1988) – Article 356 should be sparingly used, in extreme cases as a matter of last resort  Note:- In initial years till 1967 – Article 356 was invoked 12 times  From 1967 to 1985 Article 356 was invoked 92 times  In 1977 and 1988 President Rule was imposed en bloc in 9 states

Judicial Verdicts  S R Bommai vs. Union of India (1994), B. Jevan Reddy, J., sarcastically observed that quite a performance for provision which was supposed to remain a “dead letter”  Importance of floor test was recognised. “House alone is the constitutionally ordained forum to test the majority”.  Rameshwar Prasad vs. UOI (2006), “Drastic action under Art. 356 cannot be justified on mere suspicion. Objectivity and not subjectivity should guide the invocation of Art  Supreme Court rulings in Bommai and Rameshwar Prasad, do not permit stay of President Rule. Thus a displaced CM cannot be asked to prove the majority in the assembly which has already been dissolved or put under suspended animation invoking Article 356.  Further, the disqualified Legislative members cannot be allowed to vote unless their disqualification is removed.

Constitutional Law vs. Constitutional Morality  The text of the Constitution is backed by Constitutional Conventions and Constitutional Morality.  The Uttarakhand Controversy is an eye opener.  There has been lack of Political Maturity and Constitutional Morality.  The politics of Opportunism is gaining ground which in long term is fatal to the democratic traditions.  The remedy of such controversies cannot be found in the judicial fora but the wisdom and maturity of our elected representatives.  Finally to quote Nani A. Palkivala, “What is legal might yet not be legitimate. It is the legitimacy of President Rule in Uttarakhand which has been severely tested”.