President's rule
President's rule ( Engl. Literally means "government of President") is a term from the Indian domestic politics, the taking over of governance ( executive ) of the State of describing by the President of the Republic in the event of a regional emergency. The Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir was a special case. Due to its special constitutional status, there was no president's rule here . Instead, the respective governor could announce governor's rule after approval by the Indian president . In practice this corresponded to the president's rule in other states.
President's rule in the Indian Constitution
The President's rule is governed by Article 356 of the Indian Constitution . It provides that the president can dismiss the government of a state if he deems it no longer viable under the terms of the Indian constitution. The President then takes over all or some functions of the State Government as well as all or some powers of the Governor ( Governor ) or institutions and bodies of the state, with the exception of Parliament. Furthermore, he can take all measures that he considers necessary to remove the circumstances that led to the introduction of the President's rule . This also includes the repeal of the Indian constitution or individual provisions thereof. The powers of the state parliament are transferred to the Indian parliament.
However, the president may only make such a decision if he has received a report in which the governor of the relevant state provides him with detailed information on the political situation and advises the introduction of the President's rule . In addition, the President's rule requires the approval of both chambers of the Indian parliament ( Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha ) within two months of its introduction ; otherwise, it ends automatically and the old government of the state is reinstated. If the parliament agrees, the President's rule can be repealed by a proclamation by the President, but ends in any case no later than six months after its introduction, unless both chambers of the Indian Parliament have agreed to an extension for a further six months. An extension of the President's rule beyond a period of one year after its introduction may only be approved by Parliament if a state of emergency applies at the national level, in the relevant state or in parts of that state , or if the Indian Election Commission confirms, that the proper conduct of new elections in the relevant state cannot be guaranteed. Overall, the President's rule may not be upheld for more than three years.
President's rule in practice
In practice, when the President's rule is applied, executive power is transferred from the President to the Governor of the relevant state. The governor appointed by the president, who normally only has representative duties, then takes on the duties of the chief minister . Originally included in the Indian Constitution of 1950 as an emergency article in the event of internal unrest or similar threatening conditions, Article 356 has already been used over 100 times (as of August 2007). The state of Punjab was ruled under President's rule for five years (1987-1992) as a result of civil war-like clashes between extremist Sikhs who demanded the creation of an independent Sikh state and state power . Paragraph 5 of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution provides a special clause for this.
However, in several cases the President's rule served not only to deal with serious political crises, but also to remove political opponents of the central government in states from the government or to prevent them from taking office. Conversely, during the bloody clashes between Hindus and Muslims in 2002, the governor of Gujarat state failed to demand the introduction of the President's rule in order to enable more effective action against the unrest. At that time, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) ruled both in Gujarat and at the national level . Critics of the President's rule therefore see Article 356 as a threat to the federal system in India. Another point of criticism is that the governor of a state is not subject to any real democratic control, since he is appointed by the president and can only be removed by him. In addition, an indictment of abuse of office for impeachment (in English-speaking countries impeachment ) against the governor is not possible.
Individual evidence
- ↑ World Statesmen: States of India since 1947
- ↑ K. Jayasudha Reddy, Joy V. Joseph: Executive Discretion and Article 356 of the Constitution of India: A Comparative Critique , Section 8: The current situation