PRESIDENT’S RULE IN J&K
The state of Jammu and Kashmir has come under President’s rule from 20th December 2018 as Governor’s rule in the state completed its six months.
Due to the special status enjoyed by J&K, Article 356 cannot be invoked to impose President’s rule. But, as per section 92 of J&K constitution, the state is placed under Governor’s rule for the first six months and Centre’s rule can be extended by following it with President’s rule
The Governor’s rule was imposed in the state when the state’s BJP withdrew its support from Mehbooba Mufti (PDP) led coalition government.
Now, after the proclamation for the President’s rule has been made, the legislative powers of the state shall be exercised under the authority of Parliament. The Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers will aid and advise the president regarding the decisions related to the state.
JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Under Article 1 of the Indian Constitution, the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) is a constituent state of Indian Union and its territory forms a part of the territory of India.
On the other hand, Article 370 in Part XXI of the Constitution grants a special status to it. Accordingly, all the provisions of the Constitution of India do not apply to it.
It is also the only state in the Indian Union which has its own separate state Constitution—the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.
- A National Emergency declared on the ground of internal disturbance will not have effect in the state except with the concurrence of the state government.
- The President has no power to declare a financial emergency in relation to the state.
- The President has no power to suspend the Constitution of the state on the ground of failure to comply with the directions given by him.
- The State Emergency (President’s Rule) is applicable to the state.
- However, this emergency can be imposed in the state on the ground of failure of the constitutional machinery under the provisions of state Constitution and not Indian Constitution. In fact, two types of Emergencies can be declared in the state, namely, President’s Rule under the Indian Constitution and Governor’s Rule under the state Constitution.
- In 1986, the President’s Rule was imposed in the state for the first time.
CASES OF PROPER AND IMPROPER USE OF PRESIDENT’S RULE
Based on the report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre–state Relations (1988), the Supreme Court in Bommai case (1994) enlisted the situations where the exercise of power under Article 356 could be proper or improper.
Imposition of President’s Rule in a state would be proper in the following situations:
- Where after general elections to the assembly, no party secures a majority, that is, ‘Hung Assembly’.
- Where the party having a majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry and the governor cannot find a coalition ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
- Where a ministry resigns after its defeat in the assembly and no other party is willing or able to form a ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
- Where a constitutional direction of the Central government is disregarded by the state government.
- Internal subversion where, for example, a government is deliberately acting against the Constitution and the law or is fomenting a violent revolt.
- Physical breakdown where the government wilfully refuses to discharge its constitutional obligations endangering the security of the state.
The imposition of President’s Rule in a state would be improper under the following situations:
- Where a ministry resigns or is dismissed on losing majority support in the assembly and the governor recommends imposition of President’s Rule without probing the possibility of forming an alternative ministry.
- Where the governor makes his own assessment of the support of a ministry in the assembly and recommends imposition of President’s Rule without allowing the ministry to prove its majority on the floor of the Assembly.
- Where the ruling party enjoying majority support in the assembly has suffered a massive defeat in the general elections to the Lok Sabha such as in 1977 and 1980.
- Internal disturbances not amounting to internal subversion or physical breakdown.
- Maladministration in the state or allegations of corruption against the ministry or stringent financial exigencies of the state.
- Where the state government is not given prior warning to rectify itself except in case of extreme urgency leading to disastrous consequences.
- Where the power is used to sort out intra-party problems of the ruling party, or for a purpose extraneous or irrelevant to the one for which it has been conferred by the Constitution.