When is the President's Rule justified for a State?

Dear Friends
The frequent recitation of 'President's Rule' for Karnataka has resulted in a situation where I find myself fielded with several questions from a number of people including politicians, mediamen and lawyers. So, here is a Q and A meant to clarify on the situation:

1.When is President's rule justified in a State?
The President's rule has been imposed on more than 115 occasions since the Constitution of India was put into effect in 1950. The President's rule is meant to be imposed only in the event of a 'break down of the constitutional machinery in a State' and if the 'State concerned cannot be governed in accordance with the Constitution of India'.

2. Does this mean that there should always be a rise in violence and crime rates for the president rule to be imposed ?
Certainly not. A mere increase in crime rate in a State is not a criterion for imposition for the President's rule. The imposition of the President's rule is meant to accomplish an objective in which the State has failed even after specific direction from the Governor of that State.

3. Does it mean that a subjective satisfaction of the Governor is enough to impose the President's rule?
Absolutely not. Our Constitution is founded on principles of democracy. Further, the casting of a vote in our system of democracy is a vote made with knowledge of the fact that the party voted to power will remain in office for the prescribed duration. As such, the President's rule is never meant to save people from the consequences of unpleasant choices. A democratic form of Government mandates that people should take responsibility for their vote. That is, good or bad, they should face the consequences of their vote. If they happen to vote undeserving individuals to office, they should simply suffer the consequences and learn their lesson for the next scheduled election. The concept of President's rule is not meant to protect people from unpleasant consequences of their vote.

4. This would mean that people have to put up with a bad Government and endure it for the full length of five years?
Precisely. This is a natural consequence of democracy - we should take responsibility for who we vote and if we make a bad choice, we should exhibit the maturity to put up with the Government for five years so that the pain we experience will teach us to discriminate and to choose a better candidate in the forthcoming election.

5. If a cabinet minister is alleged to be involved in illegal mining, can it be said that the 'constitutional machinery in the State has failed'?
If a cabinet minister is involved in illegal activity, he should be punished under the law - no law in India confers any immunity upon any minister breaking the law. Illegal mining is a serious offence in India. There is a law to deal with illegal mining and it should be invoked against an erring minister. As such, I fail to understand how illegal mining in the State could be termed as a 'failure of the constitutional machinery in the State'. However, should there be objective and verifiable material which would implicate several ministers of the cabinet in the commission of an illegal activity, the Governor may instruct the Chief Minister to dismiss 'forthwith', ministers so implicated. Should the Chief Minister fail to satisfactorily refute the material shown by the Governor, the Chief Minister would incur a constitutional duty to immediately dismiss the offending 'ministers'. Should the Chief Minister fail to so dismiss offending members of his cabinet, a situation would have been created whereby the Government of the State cannot be carried on in 'accordance with the Constitution'. Obviously, no State in India can be allowed to function as if the Chief Minister would hold no regard for the rule of law - for a Chief Minister to knowingly continue the tenure of ministers who are shown to be involved in massive illegality, even in the face of an express directive from the Governor, would warrant the imposition of the President's rule.

6. What is the extent of material that would be required for the Governor to so act?
As already stated, the Governor cannot reach a subjective satisfaction in the matter of imposition of President's rule. Further, the incriminating material against the offending ministers should be of such nature that it is objective and verifiable. Mere political allegations are of no use. Should the material fail the test of 'strict rules of evidence' employed by a court of law, it should at least merit admissibility should the court relax some rules of evidence in a manner it does in deserving cases. As such, unless there is objective and verifiable material to impeach the credibility of a minister, it would be futile to even consider the imposition of 'President's rule' in a State.

7. Can the Court intervene in the event of an improper imposition of 'President's rule' in a State?
Very much. However, rarely does a Court grant relief in time in such matters. Often, the decisions of Court take so much time in these kinds of matters that by the time the decision is delivered, a new election would have been held and everybody would have forgotten the entire episode. First of all, should the 'President's rule' be wrongly imposed upon a State Government, the affected persons may only move the High Court. The Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction in such matters. Because this class of litigation is very infrequent at the High Courts, any petition is generally heard by a 'Single Judge' who generally hears residual matters. Thereafter, any decision of such 'single judge' is appealable to a 'Division Bench' (that is, a bench consisting of two judges). Further, the decision of the Division Bench may further be appealed to the Supreme Court. As such, because too much time is consumed in the process of deciding such matters, the option of securing an intervention by the Court is time consuming and is generally of no practical assistance to those injured by improper imposition of 'President's rule'..

--
Regards,

K.V. Dhananjay.
Advocate, Supreme Court of India
+91-99029-09390