Though home minister Sushilkumar Shinde clarified that the Centre as yet had no intention to take over the reins of the AP Govt, this remains a probable scenario because of the alleged complicity of CM Kiran Kumar Reddy in the Seemandhra agitation opposing the decision to carve out Telangana with Hyderabad as its capital.
If Article 356 is invoked now, it will be the 2n time that the state will come under what is popularly but misleadingly called Presidents rule due to an agitation in the Seemandhra districts. The first time was way back in January 1973, when CM PV Narasimha Rao was forced to step down because of the Jai Andhra agitation. Ironically, it was then the people of the coastal districts who were demanding bifurcation of the state, in a reaction to the concessions secured by the Jai T movement. But then, given the titular nature of his office, the very idea of Presidents rule is ironic. Since the President anyway does not himself rule, it would have been more appropriate to call it Central rule if at all the term rule is to be used. It is not without significance that the term Presidents rule does not figure in Article 356. The implication of this emergency provision is simply that the governor, who is referred to as the agent of the Centre, runs the state govt, with the help of advisers appointed by New Delhi.
Loosely speaking, the governor assumes the role of the CM and his advisors are, like ministers, entrusted with different portfolios. One school of thought is that even the term rule is anachronistic in a democracy where the people are the sovereign and, therefore, the executive is directly accountable to peoples representatives in the legislature, whether at the Centre or in the states. In this perspective, it would be more appropriate to refer to governments administering territories as service or seva rather than rule. Those who hold this view argue that just as a CEO appointed by a proprietor to run his business does not rule the proprietor,so too must a government chosen by the people to administer them not be seen as ruling them.
Such a change in nomenclature would also be in keeping with conscious attempts by the government itself to shake off paternalistic notions of being a mai baap sarkar. Take the manner in which the branch dealing with the marginalized sections of the people has been changed from the Ministry for Social Welfare to the Ministry for Social Justice and Empowerment. Given that Article 356 is a departure from the constitutional value of federalism, the Centre would do well to exercise this power shorn of a terminology that is so unmindful of the autonomy of the state concerned.
This would be a fitting sequel to the reforms laid down by the Supreme Court in the S R Bommai case in 1994 when it said that any proclamation under Article 356 would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament as a legislative check on the executive power. In a further safeguard, the landmark judgment held that the proclamation was subject to judicial review to probe whether it had been issued on the basis of relevant material or it was mala fide action. While a federal country like the US does not have any provision corresponding to Article 356,Indias founding fathers adapted it from a law passed by the British Raj.
Section 93 of the Government of India Act 1935,which was a prototype of the Constitution, empow-ered the British governor of a province to assume all powers if the popularly elected government was in his opinion unable to function in accordance with the law. In the drafting of Article 356, the Constituent Assembly replaced the governor with the President as the authority who would take a call on dismissing the state government.
====================================================================
Cong may not go for Prez rule in state
Even as both the home ministry and Congress have declined to rule out the option of Presidents rule in Andhra Pradesh in wake of the Seemandhra crisis, indications are that they be more reluctant to exercise the option now. When asked if a central intervention under Article 356 would not be exercised to restore order in Seemandhra, the home minister replied,"I cannot say at this moment".
However, sources in the government indicated that there might be some complexities involved in going ahead with the bifurcation process with the state under central rule. Invoking Article 356 will involve dismissal of the Kiran Kumar Reddy government and putting the state assembly under suspended animation.
As per the process of bifurcation laid down in the Constitution, once the GoMs recommendations are in, a fresh Cabinet note,along with the AP Reorganisation Bill, will have to be put up before the Cabinet for approval. Once cleared, it will be sent to the President, who will then need to refer it to the state assembly for its views. Even though the AP assembly can be revived by a revocation of Presidents rule, a government has to be in place in the state to convene the assembly session. This would require putting in place a new chief minister.
However, choosing a new chief ministerial candidate will be tricky for the Congress, already under attack for bypassing the rights and concerns of Seemandhra to create Telangana for its political ends.
This is a situation that the Congress wants to avoid. The alternative that remains is to let the Kiran Kumar government continue and finish the deliberations of the Group of Ministers examining the issues relating to bifurcation of the state as early as possible. Reflecting the thinking in the Congress that Presidents rule was avoidable, party spokesperson P C Chacko on Thursday said the question of Presidents rule is not before the government right now.things are improving in the state.
Shinde,meanwhile, held out the assurance that the GoM would finalise its recommendations on bifurcation as early as possible.That is why no timeframe has been set for the GoM, he claimed.
However, when asked if the reorganization bill would be tabled in winter session of Parliament, the home minister was non-committal. We will see, he replied. Stating that first two meetings of the GoM would finalise how it would about its task, Shinde assured that justice will be done to AP.
When asked about the likely capital of Seemandhra, he said that though Kurnool had been suggested, with Guntur as the seat of the High Court, the same would be finalized after discussions with all stakeholders. Not agreeing with Reddy's assertion that the bifurcation was being hurried with, Shinde said the process to create T had begun in 2009 itself, with Chidambaram's statement to that effect.
However, the resulting protests led the government to set up Justice Srikrishna Commission and thereafter hold further consultations with the stakeholders. "I myself took an all-party meeting in 2012.It was after this continuous process over a long period that we decided to form T,"said Shinde.
===================================================================
(Source-toi)
If Article 356 is invoked now, it will be the 2n time that the state will come under what is popularly but misleadingly called Presidents rule due to an agitation in the Seemandhra districts. The first time was way back in January 1973, when CM PV Narasimha Rao was forced to step down because of the Jai Andhra agitation. Ironically, it was then the people of the coastal districts who were demanding bifurcation of the state, in a reaction to the concessions secured by the Jai T movement. But then, given the titular nature of his office, the very idea of Presidents rule is ironic. Since the President anyway does not himself rule, it would have been more appropriate to call it Central rule if at all the term rule is to be used. It is not without significance that the term Presidents rule does not figure in Article 356. The implication of this emergency provision is simply that the governor, who is referred to as the agent of the Centre, runs the state govt, with the help of advisers appointed by New Delhi.
Loosely speaking, the governor assumes the role of the CM and his advisors are, like ministers, entrusted with different portfolios. One school of thought is that even the term rule is anachronistic in a democracy where the people are the sovereign and, therefore, the executive is directly accountable to peoples representatives in the legislature, whether at the Centre or in the states. In this perspective, it would be more appropriate to refer to governments administering territories as service or seva rather than rule. Those who hold this view argue that just as a CEO appointed by a proprietor to run his business does not rule the proprietor,so too must a government chosen by the people to administer them not be seen as ruling them.
Such a change in nomenclature would also be in keeping with conscious attempts by the government itself to shake off paternalistic notions of being a mai baap sarkar. Take the manner in which the branch dealing with the marginalized sections of the people has been changed from the Ministry for Social Welfare to the Ministry for Social Justice and Empowerment. Given that Article 356 is a departure from the constitutional value of federalism, the Centre would do well to exercise this power shorn of a terminology that is so unmindful of the autonomy of the state concerned.
This would be a fitting sequel to the reforms laid down by the Supreme Court in the S R Bommai case in 1994 when it said that any proclamation under Article 356 would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament as a legislative check on the executive power. In a further safeguard, the landmark judgment held that the proclamation was subject to judicial review to probe whether it had been issued on the basis of relevant material or it was mala fide action. While a federal country like the US does not have any provision corresponding to Article 356,Indias founding fathers adapted it from a law passed by the British Raj.
Section 93 of the Government of India Act 1935,which was a prototype of the Constitution, empow-ered the British governor of a province to assume all powers if the popularly elected government was in his opinion unable to function in accordance with the law. In the drafting of Article 356, the Constituent Assembly replaced the governor with the President as the authority who would take a call on dismissing the state government.
====================================================================
Cong may not go for Prez rule in state
Even as both the home ministry and Congress have declined to rule out the option of Presidents rule in Andhra Pradesh in wake of the Seemandhra crisis, indications are that they be more reluctant to exercise the option now. When asked if a central intervention under Article 356 would not be exercised to restore order in Seemandhra, the home minister replied,"I cannot say at this moment".
However, sources in the government indicated that there might be some complexities involved in going ahead with the bifurcation process with the state under central rule. Invoking Article 356 will involve dismissal of the Kiran Kumar Reddy government and putting the state assembly under suspended animation.
As per the process of bifurcation laid down in the Constitution, once the GoMs recommendations are in, a fresh Cabinet note,along with the AP Reorganisation Bill, will have to be put up before the Cabinet for approval. Once cleared, it will be sent to the President, who will then need to refer it to the state assembly for its views. Even though the AP assembly can be revived by a revocation of Presidents rule, a government has to be in place in the state to convene the assembly session. This would require putting in place a new chief minister.
However, choosing a new chief ministerial candidate will be tricky for the Congress, already under attack for bypassing the rights and concerns of Seemandhra to create Telangana for its political ends.
This is a situation that the Congress wants to avoid. The alternative that remains is to let the Kiran Kumar government continue and finish the deliberations of the Group of Ministers examining the issues relating to bifurcation of the state as early as possible. Reflecting the thinking in the Congress that Presidents rule was avoidable, party spokesperson P C Chacko on Thursday said the question of Presidents rule is not before the government right now.things are improving in the state.
Shinde,meanwhile, held out the assurance that the GoM would finalise its recommendations on bifurcation as early as possible.That is why no timeframe has been set for the GoM, he claimed.
However, when asked if the reorganization bill would be tabled in winter session of Parliament, the home minister was non-committal. We will see, he replied. Stating that first two meetings of the GoM would finalise how it would about its task, Shinde assured that justice will be done to AP.
When asked about the likely capital of Seemandhra, he said that though Kurnool had been suggested, with Guntur as the seat of the High Court, the same would be finalized after discussions with all stakeholders. Not agreeing with Reddy's assertion that the bifurcation was being hurried with, Shinde said the process to create T had begun in 2009 itself, with Chidambaram's statement to that effect.
However, the resulting protests led the government to set up Justice Srikrishna Commission and thereafter hold further consultations with the stakeholders. "I myself took an all-party meeting in 2012.It was after this continuous process over a long period that we decided to form T,"said Shinde.
===================================================================
(Source-toi)
No comments:
Post a Comment