Context: The recent violence in Manipur has reignited discussions about the role of emergency provisions in India's federal structure and their impact on Centre-State relations. This debate focuses on the use of emergency powers under Articles 355 and 356 of the Indian Constitution, especially in light of the ongoing crisis in Manipur.

About Federal set-up  in India

• India is a federation with governments at the Centre and the States. 

• The Seventh Schedule to the Indian Constitution distributes the power between the Union and States.

• Under this scheme, it is the domain of the State governments to maintain law and order in their respective States.

Emergency Provisions in the Constitution

• The emergency provisions are provided in Part XVIII of the Constitution.

• Articles 355 and 356 deal primarily with the affairs of government in a State under this part.

• Article 355 imposes a duty on the Centre to protect every State from external aggression and internal disturbance.

• It also specifies that the Centre should ensure that every State government operates according to the Constitution. 

• Article 356 allows for the imposition of the President’s rule if a State’s government cannot function in accordance with constitutional provisions. 

• Comparison with Other Countries: In the U.S. and Australia, federal functions also include protecting states, but they do not have provisions for removing state governments.

B.R. Ambedkar’s View 

• B.R. Ambedkar explained that Article 355 was designed to ensure that any interference by the Centre in a State’s administration under Article 356 is justified and constitutionally mandated.

• It serves to prevent arbitrary or unauthorized use of Article 356, maintaining a check on federal power and preserving the federal structure of the polity.

Issues and Concerns 

• It was hoped that  Articles 355 and 356 would never be called into operation and would remain a dead letter

• However, Article 356 was misused several times to dismiss elected state governments with majorities, often for reasons ranging from electoral losses to issues with law and order, undermining constitutional principles and federalism.

Judicial Rulings

• The Supreme Court’s S.R. Bommai case (1994) restricted misuse of Article 356

•  it should only be used for constitutional breakdowns, not ordinary law and order issues. The imposition is subject to judicial review.

• The scope of Article 355 has expanded over time through various Supreme Court rulings.

• Initially, in State of Rajasthan Vs Union of India (1977), Article 355 was narrowly interpreted as justifying the use of Article 356. 

• However, in later cases like Naga People’s Movement (1998), Sarbananda Sonowal (2005), and H.S. Jain (1997), the Supreme Court broadened the interpretation of Article 355, allowing the Union to take all necessary statutory and constitutional actions to protect states and ensure they adhere to constitutional governance.

Recommendations by Commissions

The Sarkaria Commission (1987), the National Commission (2002), and the Punchhi Commission (2010) have all stated that 

• Article 355 requires the Union to protect states and allows it to take necessary actions to fulfill this duty. 

• They have also emphasized that Article 356, which imposes President’s rule, should be used only as a last resort in extreme and urgent situations.

Conclusion  

• The emergency provisions are essential for maintaining constitutional order, their impact on Centre-State relations is significant and complex. 

• They necessitate a delicate balance between central authority and state autonomy, and their application must be guided by principles of fairness, necessity, and constitutional integrity. 

• As India continues to evolve, ensuring that these provisions are used judiciously and within the framework of federal principles will be key to preserving the democratic and federal fabric of the nation.