'Article 356 cannot continue in the present form'

Prakash Karat, Polit Bureau member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), states that by its very nature Article 356 of the Constitution lends itself to immense misuse. Hence, Karat says, the CPI(M) is of the view that it should be replaced in a suitable manner. In an interview to Venkitesh Ramakrishnan, he explains the reasons for the CPI(M)'s opposition to Article 356 and the party's proposals for replacing it. Excerpts:

The question of using Article 356 as an instrument to settle political scores has once again come to the fore with the demand from some of the allies of the BJP to use the provision against their political rivals. How do you look at this?

The nature of that constitutional provision invites misuse constantly. In most cases, the use of Article 356 has been undemocratic and unjustified. The most reprehensible aspect of the provision is that there is no redress. The only thing since 1994, that is, after the Bommai judgment, is that it has been made open to judicial scrutiny. There is probably some restraint or check on account of this.

Do you think that there has been any qualitative change in the use of Article 356 apart from this on account of the Bommai judgment?

The significance of the Bommai judgment is that it laid down certain parameters for the use of Article 356. It pointed out that Article 356 is not meant to be used by the ruling party at the Centre to settle scores with political rivals. It has tried to puts limits on draconian provision as such. Judicial intervention has contributed to checking misuse. But it cannot eliminate misuse.

So what is the solution?

The real solution is to amend the Constitution suitably to replace Article 356. There is no doubt that Article 356 in the present form cannot continue. We have been proposing in various forums that the constitutional provision be so amended that a State government can be removed only in the case of a grave threat to national unity arising from the actions of the State government or a separatist movement by that government. This is our position after the experience of December 6, 1992, when the BJP State governments did pose a threat to national unity.

But there are other situations in which Article 356 becomes relevant; for instance, when an election throws up a hung Assembly and none of the participants is able to work out a post-election alliance that can form a government. Or when a government loses its majority on account of the withdrawal of support of an alliance partner.

Situations like these have arisen repeatedly in Uttar Pradesh in recent times. In our opinion, these situations need not strictly fall under the proviso of Article 356. It is a question of not having or losing majority in the Assembly. For that you can work out some other method and guidelines that Governors can follow; you do not need Article 356. Article 356 refers essentially to the breakdown of the Constitution but also speaks about other situations. It is this open-ended thing that has been used even to bypass a Governor's report and dismiss a government. As they did in Tamil Nadu when the earlier DMK Government was dismissed. We are for changing this constitutional provision. That will settle the controversy.

K. GAJENDRAN

But how to go about it? The BJP does not seem to be serious about this now despite having been very vocal against the provision in the past. This is because of the internal problems of the ruling coalition and the incessant demand from many of the BJP's allies to use Article 356. The Inter-State Council has set up a sub-committee to go into the subject and it has prepared some formulation or report, which has given suggestions to replace Article 356. This committee includes Chief Ministers of the BJP, the Congress(I), the CPI(M), and so on. What will be required of the BJP Government is to convene the Inter-State Council and complete this work started by the United Front Government. Then we can have an agreement on how to replace Article 356 because any proposal requires a two-thirds majority in Parliament to be passed.

The role of Governors has also come into question in the context of the misuse of Article 356.

The Sarkaria Commission recommendations are well intended in this matter. The Commission had said that people in active politics, especially leaders of the ruling parties, should not be appointed Governors. But in practice it is happening. It has happened now also with the appointment of senior BJP leader Sunder Singh Bhandari as the Governor of Bihar, that is, in a State that is ruled by a Government that the BJP considers hostile. We have to go beyond the Sarkaria Commission. When we discuss the whole gamut of Centre-State relations, the role of the Governor becomes crucial. At present the role of the Governor is detrimental to the federal structure.

We can work out various methods to get over this. One option is to rule that the Centre should take the consent of the State government before appointing the Governor. The other option is to suggest a panel of names and accept one person, in consultation with the State government concerned. It should not be the prerogative only of the ruling party to appoint a Governor.

AIADMK general secretary Jayalalitha has said that there was a political agreement between her party and the BJP before the Lok Sabha elections that Article 356 would be used against the Tamil Nadu Government. How do you look at this purported political deal?

It is quite possible that a deal like this was there. Many political parties think that the use of Article 356 to suit their own interests is all right. What we are saying is a more basic thing: get rid of this Article in the present form and amend it suitably to solve the problem of its misuse.

Table of Contents

Home | The Hindu | Business Line | Sportstar