The first Opposition government at the Centre—the Janata Government—dismissed as many as nine Congress-led State governments. The dismissals were not done on the basis of governor’s report. Indira Gandhi gave a befitting reply by dismissing nine opposition governments on returning to power in 1980.

Indira Gandhi used Article 356 not only to reduce dissent within her party but also to check the Opposition parties of the time. Notwithstanding the rhetoric of cooperative federalism, the BJP regime today is walking the same path to stamping its dominance. Like Indira Gandhi, BJP too appears to be using assembly suspension to tactfully change the ruling composition to its advantage.

On one hand, they seem to uphold the spirit of Bommai judgment by giving the state a chance to get things back on rails. But, on the other, they also provide strategic actors with enough space for manipulation. Despite, lofty claims of saving democracy, protecting the interests of the state and so on, as the Congress in the past, and the BJP now obviously has no qualms in stoking dissidence and encourage party switchers.

In the run-up to the 2014 general elections, the BJP simultaneously promised co-operative federalism as well as a Congress-mukt Bharat. After Arunachal Pradesh earlier this year, and Uttarakhand now, it appears that promises have been belied. For about two years, we have witnessed the battle to achieve a Congress-mukt Bharat.

The imposition of President’s rule in Uttarakhand on the eve of a vote to test the majority of the Harish Rawat government is yet another instance of a highly questionable resort to a constitutional remedy that was envisaged for extraordinary circumstances.

The action is bad in law as much as it pre-empted a floor test, which the landmark Bommai judgment held as right means to establish a government’s majority. The question of course is how one deals with situations when there are indications that the integrity of the floor test is or will be vitiated through abrupt and wholesale disqualifications.

In this respect, the sequence of events in Uttarakhand bears an uncanny resemblance to the developments that led to dismissal of the Congress government in Arunachal Pradesh, which was followed by the installation of a BJP-backed government there.

The common features are a Congress Chief Minister losing the support of a section of his legislature party, and the opposition BJP making common cause with the dissidents to unseat the incumbent. In both cases, the chief ministers decided to risk a face-off in the Assembly, but only after taking the precaution of getting the rebel legislators disqualified for defection. On its part, in both states, the BJP showed little compunction in openly supporting rebellion in another party.

It was believed that the Bommai judgment of 1994, which sharply circumscribed the Centre’s power to dismiss a state government, would put an end to this abhorrent practice. Apart from demanding a floor test to ascertain a government’s majority, the Supreme Court held that the Assembly could not be dissolved immediately, but only kept under suspended animation until both Houses of Parliament approved President’s rule. But we have a recent history that demonstrates that such norms can be cynically exploited by political parties.

While the ruling party in a state can selectively disqualify legislators ahead of the vote, the prevailing political dispensation at the Centre has option of placing the Assembly under suspended animation until it cobbles together an alternative regime.

The Uttarakhand High Court’s order directing the State Assembly to hold a floor test to ascertain the majority of ousted Chief Minister Harish Rawat is perhaps the rarest instance of such an interim relief being granted while the legislature is under suspended animation.

In effect the order temporarily revives the assembly for one day for the sole purpose of conducting the trust vote, and may even appear to be partial stay on the Proclamation imposing President’s rule, to the extent that it orders the convening of a suspended house. A Division Bench of the High Court has since stayed the ridiculous order.

There is an urgent need to evolve a further set of norms that inhibit the blatant misuse of Article 356 on the one hand and the cynical use of a Speaker’s power to sustain a sinking regime on the other. (IPA Service)