Emergency Provisions impact on Centre-State Relations

As outlined in Articles 352-360 of the Constitution, emergency provisions impact on centre-state relations is significant as they shift the power balance towards the central government. Read here to learn how these provisions influence the relationship between the two.

The recent violence in Manipur has reignited discussions about the role of the Centre in managing internal crises within states, highlighting the complexities of Centre-State relations in India.

This issue touches upon the Centre’s constitutional powers, particularly under Article 355 and Article 356 of the Constitution, which outline the responsibilities and emergency provisions for the Centre’s intervention in state affairs.

Key Issues in Manipur

1. Article 355 and Centre’s Duty:
   • Article 355 mandates that the Centre must protect every state against external aggression and internal disturbances. In the case of Manipur, this provision has been called into question regarding the Centre’s role in managing the violence and restoring law and order in the state.
   • The situation in Manipur has raised concerns about whether the Centre has adequately fulfilled its duty under Article 355 to maintain internal security.
2. Article 356 and Imposition of President’s Rule:
   • Article 356 allows the Centre to impose the President’s Rule if it believes a state government is unable to function by constitutional provisions. However, this provision has historically been controversial, often seen as a political tool rather than a genuine intervention.
   • While President’s Rule has not been imposed in Manipur, the debate around its potential use to handle the crisis underscores the tension between the autonomy of state governments and the Centre’s authority.
3. Centre’s Role in Law and Order:
   • Law and order is primarily a state subject under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, limiting the Centre’s direct involvement in local policing and internal security matters. However, in situations of extreme violence, as seen in Manipur, the Centre may provide support through paramilitary forces or even consider direct intervention.
   • The Manipur crisis has emphasized the challenges in defining the Centre’s role in intervening during internal disturbances while respecting the state’s autonomy.
4. Federalism and Political Dynamics:
   • The situation in Manipur has sparked discussions about the federal structure of India and how the balance of power between the Centre and states is managed. In times of internal crises, particularly in states governed by opposition parties, the role of the Centre can become a politically charged issue, influencing Centre-State relations.

Historical Context:

• The use of emergency provisions like Article 356 has a long history in India, with instances of political misuse during the Indira Gandhi era. However, the Bommai judgment in 1994 limited the arbitrary use of this provision, requiring strict judicial review before imposing the President’s Rule.

Read: Violence in Manipur

Emergency provisions impact on centre-state relations

Concentration of Power at the Centre:

• During an emergency, the federal structure of India becomes more unitary. The President (acting on the advice of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers) can assume extraordinary powers, including the ability to override State authority.
• Article 353 gives the Centre the power to make laws on subjects that are normally under the State List, centralizing authority.

Suspension of Legislative Powers:

• The State legislatures may lose their law-making powers during an emergency. The Parliament can legislate on State matters, weakening the federal character and pushing States into a subservient position.
• Financial powers also shift, as Parliament can authorize any expenditure for the duration of the emergency.

Effect on the Executive and Judiciary:

• State governments can be controlled or even dismissed under Article 356 (President’s Rule) if the President believes the governance in a State has failed according to constitutional provisions.
• During the emergency under Article 352, the judiciary’s ability to check the executive and legislative branches can also be curtailed, especially concerning fundamental rights (like during the 1975 emergency).

Impact on Fundamental Rights and Governance:

• The suspension of fundamental rights (Articles 358 and 359) in an emergency weakens the ability of citizens to challenge the misuse of power by the Centre, and can disproportionately affect the governance at the State level, particularly if the Centre imposes policies at odds with local priorities.
• State-level autonomy is greatly reduced, as the Centre can overrule or bypass State authorities.

Strains on Centre-State Relations:

• Prolonged use of emergency provisions, particularly Article 356, has been viewed as politically motivated and has created friction between the Centre and the States. The imposition of the President’s Rule has often been criticized as a means for the Centre to oust opposition-ruled States, straining Centre-State relations.
• Instances like the 1975 Emergency showcased the potential for abuse, which led to increased demands for checks and balances in subsequent constitutional reforms, particularly after the S.R. Bommai judgment of 1994, which limited the misuse of Article 356.

Centre-state Relations During Different Emergencies

National emergency:

• During a national emergency, the centre has the authority to provide directives to the state on any matter.
• The State governments are brought under the complete control of the centre, though, they are not suspended.

State emergency:

• When a presidential rule is imposed in a state, the president may exercise the duties and authority vested in him and powers vested in the governor or any other administrative authority in the state.

Financial emergency:

• During a Financial Emergency, The President may also give other crucial orders, such as lowering the salaries of high court judges and state personnel. The centre may require states to abide by financial propriety canons.

Conclusion

Emergency provisions are a constitutional tool to maintain national security and governance during crises, but they heavily tilt the balance of power towards the Centre, often at the cost of State autonomy. Their frequent or unjustified use can create long-term tensions in Centre-State relations, leading to calls for constitutional safeguards and judicial oversight.

In the case of Manipur, the Centre’s involvement in restoring peace and ensuring accountability has come under scrutiny, reflecting broader issues of governance, federalism, and the constitutional limits of Centre-State relations in crises.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q. What are the provisions of a state emergency?

Ans: Article 356 empowers the President to proclaim if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a state cannot be carried on by the provisions of the constitution.

Q. What are the constitutional provisions relating to Centre-state relations?

Ans: Articles 268 to 293 of the Constitution of India deal with the Financial Relations between the Centre and the States. Taxation of the subjects on the Union list is the sole responsibility of Parliament. Taxation on the things included in the State list may only be done by the State legislature.

Q. What is the impact of an emergency on fundamental rights?

Ans: Article 358 – Suspension of Fundamental Rights under Article 19. As per Article 358, when a proclamation of National Emergency is made, the six Fundamental Rights under Article 19 (Right to Freedom) are automatically suspended. No separate order for their suspension is required.

-Article by Swathi Satish