The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on a pivotal issue concerning the constitutional breakdown in Andhra Pradesh. This article delves into this recent development, the role of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the State Government’s appeal while also discussing the concept and implications of President’s rule.
The Supreme Court’s Stay Order
Currently in the news, the Supreme Court (SC) has placed a stay on an order by the Andhra Pradesh High Court (HC). The HC intended to launch a judicial enquiry to investigate if there was a constitutional breakdown in the state machinery, which would necessitate the declaration of President’s rule under Article 356. A three-judge bench spearheaded by the Chief Justice of India, S A Bobde was unsettled by the order and has decided to address the matter after vacations.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s Decision
The move by the Andhra Pradesh High Court came to light while hearing several habeas corpus petitions in October 2020. The court, on its own, summoned the State counsel to assist in determining whether the existing circumstances warrant recording a finding of constitutional breakdown. Habeas Corpus, a Latin term indicating ‘to have the body of’, allows the court to issue an order to a person who has detained another, demanding the detainee be brought before it. This writ serves as a key defense of individual liberty against arbitrary detention, applicable to both public authorities and private individuals.
The Appeal of the State Government
The State Government appealed, stating that the HC framed the question without any basis or pleadings from any parties. It was emphasized that Article 356, dealing with the failure of Constitutional machinery in a state, is an executive power, not one for the judiciary. According to the Constitutional framework, the courts are not designated to decide on a Constitutional breakdown in a state as they lack the standards to make such a determination. This is fundamentally an executive function needing a detailed factual analysis. The State Government further argued the HC order encroaches upon the executive powers of the Constitution, violating the doctrine of separation of powers, and thus the Constitution’s basic structure.
Understanding The Separation of Powers
Separation of powers refers to the distribution of legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government. As all three branches’ approval is mandatory for creating, executing, and administering laws, this minimizes potential arbitrary excesses by the government. This constitutional segregation prevents any branch of government from wielding excessive power.
President’s Rule Explained
The President’s rule signifies the suspension of a state government replaced by the Centre’s direct rule, also referred to as ‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency’. SC in the Bommai case 1994 outlined situations where the President’s power under Article 356 could be exercised. One of these situations would include a ‘Hung Assembly’, where no party obtains a majority post general elections. The President, advised by the Union Council of Ministers (executive), invokes Article 356 of the Constitution to impose President’s rule.
Parliamentary Approval and Duration of President’s Rule
A proclamation enforcing President’s Rule must receive approval from both Houses of Parliament within two months from its issue date. A simple majority in either House clears this approval. Initially valid for six months, the Parliament’s approval can extend the President’s Rule to a maximum of three years, every six months.