The recent spate of renewed violence in Manipur has once again triggered the discussion around Centre-State relations and the use of emergency provisions by the Centre.
In India, it is the domain of the State governments to maintain law and order in their respective States.
The emergency provisions are provided in Part XVIII of the Constitution where Articles 355 and 356 deal primarily with the affairs of government in a State.
President’s Rule is also known as ‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency.
While in the U.S. and Australia, federal government functions also involve protecting States, their constitutions do not contain provisions for removing State governments.
Cases |
Judgements |
State of Rajasthan Vs Union of India (1977) |
|
S R Bommai case (1994) |
|
H.S.Jain Vs Union of India (1997) |
|
Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights Vs Union of India (1998) |
|
Sarbananda sonowal vs union of india (2005) |
|
Dr. Ambedkar in the constituent Assembly wished that Articles 355 and 356 would never be called into operation and would remain a dead letter.
Committee |
Recommendations |
1st ARC 1967 |
|
Sarkaria Commission (1987) |
|
National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) |
|
Punchhi Commission (2007) |
|
1st Administrative Reforms Commission (1967) was initially headed by Morarji Desai and later by Hanumanthaiah.
Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah chaired the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC) in 2002.
Constitutional Provisions on Emergency |
|
The Hindu | Impact of emergency provisions on Centre-State relations