Constitutional Law: Articles 356 & 262 Analysis
Uploaded by
Rakshit AgarwalConstitutional Law: Articles 356 & 262 Analysis
Uploaded by
Rakshit AgarwalCommon questions
Powered by AIArticle 74(2) of the Indian Constitution prevents inquiry into the advice offered by Ministers to the President. Though it bars courts from investigating the specific advice, it does not prevent them from demanding the relevant material leading to the President's satisfaction. This preserves some level of transparency and accountability, as the Union of India must present the material basis for a Proclamation under Article 356 in court. This provision thus balances the confidentiality of ministerial advice with the need for judicial scrutiny of decisions affecting state governments .
Under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, the President exercises power in situations where the state government's functioning is not in accordance with constitutional provisions. However, this power is essentially that of the Union Council of Ministers, as the satisfaction needed under Article 356 is subjective and based on the material provided to the President, often including the Governor's report. Thus, while formally exercised by the President, the power under Article 356 is influenced largely by the Union Council of Ministers .
Tribunals established under the Water Disputes Resolution Act, 1956, are generally more effective than traditional court systems in resolving inter-state water disputes. This effectiveness stems from the ability of the tribunals to focus on the technical and scientific aspects of water management rather than purely legal interpretations. The composition and decision-making process of the tribunals are designed to account for the interests of multiple states, providing a more comprehensive resolution to disputes that affect public resources and state relations, which traditional courts may not be equipped to handle efficiently .
Article 356(3) serves as a safeguard by requiring that any Proclamation made by the President must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months; otherwise, it lapses. This mechanism ensures that there is legislative oversight and checks the President's power, preventing potential misuse. For example, if a Proclamation is issued due to alleged failure of the constitutional machinery in a state, and both Houses of Parliament do not approve it, the state government that was dismissed revives, thereby ensuring a check on executive overreach .
The Joint Parliamentary Committee Report highlighted the inadequacy of traditional legal approaches, which predominantly treat water rights as private proprietary interests, for resolving inter-state water disputes. The report influenced the adoption of an extrajudicial approach, advocating for non-legal mechanisms like the tribunal system under the Water Disputes Resolution Act, 1956. This approach caters to the complex nature of water disputes between states, which are affected by public interests and require considerations beyond individual property rights .
The 'satisfaction' under Article 356 refers to the subjective assessment by the President, based on a specific set of criteria, often including the Governor's report, that the state cannot be governed according to constitutional provisions. This subjective nature means that while the decision rests formally with the President, it is based on material and advice from the Union Council of Ministers. The existence of adequate and relevant material is a prerequisite, and its adequacy is not justiciable, although its relevance is subject to judicial scrutiny .
Article 356 reflects the balance of power in the federal structure by allowing central intervention in state governance under specific situations where constitutional governance fails. It provides a mechanism for the central government to reassert control in states to ensure compliance with constitutional provisions, thereby maintaining the integrity and unity of the nation. However, this power is conditioned with checks including parliamentary approval and judicial review, ensuring that it does not undermine the autonomy of state governments without justification .
The Water Disputes Resolution Act, 1956, operationalizes Article 262 by creating tribunals to adjudicate inter-state water disputes, thus providing a non-judicial mechanism for resolution. It empowers the Central Government to set up such tribunals on complaints by state governments regarding disputes over the waters of inter-state rivers. This is significant as it addresses the limitation of using conventional legal approaches for disputes owing to the complex nature of inter-state water rights, ensuring that resolutions consider broader public interests .
The document suggests that the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission concerning Article 356 emphasize the seriousness with which the power to dismiss state governments should be exercised. It advocates for this power to be a measure of last resort, utilized only when all other methods to rectify the situation have failed. The Commission recommends that the President should exercise this power based on well-substantiated reasons and relevant materials, fostering a cautious and appropriately restrained approach to ensure it is not used arbitrarily .
The judicial review of a Proclamation under Article 356 involves the Supreme Court or High Court examining whether the Proclamation was issued on valid grounds. The courts do not assess the correctness or adequacy of the material but check for relevance and any mala fide actions. If found to be based on irrelevant grounds or issued with mala fide intentions, the Proclamation can be struck down. The Union of India must produce the material that led to the President's satisfaction, as refusal to do so weakens the defense of the action taken .