Account for legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using article 356 by the union government mid-1990s.
Introduction
Article 356, enabling President's Rule, was frequently misused to dismiss state governments. Its reduced application post-mid-1990s stems from significant legal and political shifts.
Legal Factors
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) judgment: Mandated judicial review of proclamations, required parliamentary approval, and emphasized the floor test for assessing majority.
Political Factors
- Rise of Coalition Politics: Post-1990s, coalition governments at the Centre reduced single-party dominance, making arbitrary imposition politically difficult due to reliance on regional allies.
- Assertive Regional Parties: Stronger regional parties, often part of ruling coalitions, acted as checks against central overreach.
- Federal Consciousness: Growing demand for state autonomy created political pressure against central interference.
- Commission Recommendations: Reports like Sarkaria (1988) and Punchhi (2010) built political consensus against misuse.
- Fear of Backlash: Past misuses led to public and political condemnation, making Union governments more cautious.
Conclusion
These combined legal safeguards and evolving political dynamics have fostered a more balanced federal structure, ensuring Article 356 is now a measure of last resort.
156 words · target ~150
The answer should explain the reasons or causes behind the reduced frequency of using Article 356, categorizing them into legal and political factors.
Suggested structure
Introduction: Brief context of Article 356 and its historical misuse.
Legal Factors: Role of Judiciary (S.R. Bommai case).
Political Factors: Rise of coalition politics at the Centre.
Political Factors: Increased strength of regional parties and federal consciousness.
Political Factors: Recommendations of various commissions and fear of backlash.
Conclusion: Synthesis of factors and their impact on Indian federalism.
Key points
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) judgment: Established strict guidelines, made judicial review mandatory, required parliamentary approval, and emphasized the floor test for assessing majority.
Rise of coalition governments at the Centre from the mid-1990s: Reduced the dominance of a single party, making arbitrary imposition of President's Rule politically difficult.
Increased strength and assertiveness of regional political parties: Acted as a significant check on central government's overreach, often being part of ruling coalitions or strong opposition.
Growing federal consciousness and demand for greater state autonomy: Created political pressure against central interference and strengthened states' bargaining power.
Recommendations of various commissions (e.g., Sarkaria Commission 1988, Punchhi Commission 2010): Though advisory, they built political consensus against the misuse of Article 356.
Fear of political backlash and loss of legitimacy: Past instances of misuse led to public and political condemnation, making future Union governments more cautious.
Common mistakes
Not clearly distinguishing between legal and political factors.
Failing to mention or adequately explain the significance of the S.R. Bommai case.
Providing a general history of Article 356 instead of focusing on the reasons for its *reduced frequency* post-mid-1990s.
Overlooking the role of coalition politics and regional parties in the changed political landscape.
Difficulty: Medium — The question requires specific knowledge of the S.R. Bommai case and an understanding of the evolution of India's political landscape (rise of coalition era, regional parties) post-1990s. It demands analytical reasoning to 'account for' the factors, rather than just describing Article 356.