Centre-State Relation and Judiciary

Centre-State Relation and Judiciary

Centre-State Relation and Judiciary

  • The first major judicial intervention came in the issue of Centre-State relation when the Communist- controlled State of Kerala tried to take over the management of the private schools in the state. The Communist party had formed the government in Kerala in the year 1957. The governor had reserved this Education bill for the assent of the President. In order to avoid controversy, this was referred to the Supreme Court under the Presidential reference of Article 143 of the Constitution. It was held by majority of seven judges that the bill violated the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 30 (1)and thus was unconstitutional. State governments complained that they found in difficult to regulate the educational standards in the state after such a verdict.
  • In another landmark case of Babulal Parate v. State of Maharashtra (1960) which had power to change, diminish, alter boundary, form new state and change its name gives significant and far reaching impact on the federal structure. The Court held that the as proviso to Article 3 does not require the consent of the state concerned. It can be altered, changed unilaterally by the will of the centre. The proviso to Article 3 states that no Bill for the purpose shall be introduced in either house of parliament except on the recommendation of the President and unless, where the proposal contained in the bill affects the area, boundaries or name of any of the states, the bill has been referred by the President to the legislature of that state for expressing its views therein within such period as may be specified in the reference or within such further period as the President may allow and the period so specified or allowed has expired.

The power under Article 3, the reference to the state government is not the discretionary power of the President, it is the power of the Council of Ministers and under their advice (Article 74). Thus, in the judgement it was held that even if the states opposed its boundaries, area, name etc. can be changed lawfully by the Centre.

  • The Supreme Court in the Purushothaman v. State of Kerala held that there was no time limit for the President to give assent to a bill reserved to him by the governor. It was also held that the Bill pending before the Governor or the President does not lapse on dissolution of the assembly and on proroguing the bill pending in the legislature (either house) does not lapse.

Judiciary on Emergency Provisions of Constitution

Supreme Court as mentioned above in the Judgement of Minerva Mills. Union of India established parliamentary federal democracy as one of the 'basic structure' to the Constitution of India. And since then the courts have tilted towards the Centre in support of taking over the state government under Article 356. The Constitutional Courts, that is the Supreme and the High courts, made significant contribution in upholding the autonomy and status of the responsible state governments.

  • In 1977, the ruling Congress(R) dissolved the Lok Sabha, despite having another year to run as per the 42nd amendment. The elections were held and the Congress(R) faced its worst first ever defeat since Independence.
  • The coalition, Janata Party, formed the government with overwhelming majority, this is despite the fact that regionally there were a number of states ruled by the Congress party including states such as Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, and West Bengal.
  • The Union Home Minister addressed a letter to the Chief Ministers of these states on 18th April 1977 to 'earnestly commending' for their consideration that they may advice their Governor to dissolve their respective state assemblies under Article 174(2) and seek a new, fresh mandate from the people.
  • Shanti Bhusan, the Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs on 22nd April 1977, said that "a clear case has been made out for the dissolution of the Assemblies in the nine Congress-ruled states and holding of fresh elections since a serious doubt has been caste on their enjoying the people's confidence, their party having been rejected in the recent Lok Sabha elections".
  • The aggrieved state governments knocked the doors of the Supreme Court seeking directions against imposition of President's rule under Article 356. The Supreme Court refused to intervene and question the dissolution of the governments in the Congress ruled states.  
  • In fact, it seemed that the court were supportive of such moves by the Centre. The Central government of Janata party relied on the 'non-justiciable' provision under Article 356, which was made so in the 42nd amendment by the Indira government it was later made justiciable by the Janata party in the 44th amendment).
  • The Judgement of Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and Ors . Union of India made a serious dent in the federal consciousness of the nation. It went against the autonomous functioning of the state and legitimized the intervention of the Centre into the affairs of the state. This judgement thus had far reaching implications which changed the view of federal setup in the country. But subsequent to this judgement, the Courts started to take lenient view and supported the legitimate rights of the states.

Judiciary and Article 356

In S.R.Bommai 2n Union of India, the Supreme Court made a significant shift and upheld the federal rights of the State, and questioned the indiscriminate application of Article 356. It stated that Article 356 is not immune from the purview of the judicial review and the courts can strike it down when found to be malafide or based on extraneous grounds. In the S.R. Bommai case, the Apex Court laid down the following conditions:

  • The power by Article 356 upon the President is a conditional power. It is not an absolute power. The existence of material which may comprise of or include the report(s) of the Governor is a pre-condition. The satisfaction must be formed on relevant material. The recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission with respect to the exercise of power under Article 356 do merit serious consideration at the hands of all concerned.
  • The Proclamation under Article 356(1) is not immune from judicial review. The Supreme Court or the High Court can strike down the Proclamation if it is found to be mala fide or based on whole irrelevant or extraneous grounds.
  • Burden lies on the Government of India to prove that relevant material exist (to justify the issue of Proclamation). When called upon, the Union of India has to produce material on the basis of which action was taken. It cannot refuse to do so, if it seeks to defend the action. The Court will not go into the correctness of the material or its adequacy. Its enquiry is limited to see whether the material was relevant to the action.
  • If the Court strikes down the Proclamation, it has the power to restore the dismissed Government to office and revive and reactivate the Legislative assembly wherever it may have been dissolved or kept under suspension. In such a case, the court has the power to declare that act done, orders passed and laws made during the period of Proclamation was in force shall remain unaffected and be treated as valid
  • The Constitution of India has created a federation but with a bias in favour of the Centre. Within the sphere allotted to the States, they are supreme.
  • Any State government which pursues unsecular policies or unsecular course of actions acts contrary to the constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article 356.

Judiciary on Minority Status

The intervention of the Supreme Court on the minority status has also affected the Centre- State relations. In the TMA Pai judgement and other similar pronouncements the courts have complicated the question of right of minorities and their relevance within the federal structure. Till then the court had asked to consider only the minorities based on religion state wise, but after the TMA Pai case, both religious and linguistic minorities were have to be considered state wise. This did have impact in identifying and notifying minorities at the state level

It can be seen that initially the judiciary kept itself restrained and interpreted the provisions of the law literally. Moreover, due to the conditions prevailing at the time immediately after independence it is logical to derive that the courts were tilted in favour of the Union to carry forward the spirit of nation building. And decades after independence it was found that the Union was not functioning as efficiently and it is better to leave certain powers with the states themselves, moreover it was seen that Union was encroaching the powers given to the states under the Constitution and Courts carried forward a liberal interpretation of the constitutional provisions. In numerous judgements we can see this tilt towards the right of people over the national unity and integration as put forth by the Union. In the present era there is a phenomenon called as the Judicial activism' which makes the courts intervene into a wide range of issues. At present the Supreme Court and other courts have become the Champion of the rights of the people rather than government.