Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

CENTRE STATE RELATIONS (ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS (MORE CONFLICT THAN…

- - - - 2.DPSP: ALL SUBJECTS ARE ITEMS OF STATE LIST.. FOR WHICH UNION CAN ISSUE DIRECTIONS REGARDING STATE EXECUTIVE POWER
      - 1.APART FROM PROTECTION OF UNION PROPERTIES LIKE RAILWAYS
    - - NOT ONLY UNION HAS POWER TO ISSUE BUT POWER TO PUNISH STATES IN EVENT OF NON COMPLIANCE OF UNION'S DIRECTION
    - - PUNISHMENT
        
        ABOVE RULE:IT IS EXPECTED THAT USE OF DESE WILL BE IN SPIRT OF FEDERALISM & PARLIAMENTARY FRAMEWORK... IN EVENT OF EXTREME USE... BUT THIS BECOME FREQUENT
        ARBITRARY USE OF 356
        
        SO ART 356(PRESIDENT'S RULE)
      - BASIS:
        
        ART 365 : PREZ HOLDING STATE CAN'T RUN ACC. TO CONSTITUTIONAL MACHINERY>>
        SO ART 355:DUTY OF PREZ MAKE SURE STATE) RUNS ACC TO CONS. >>
  - - - EXPERTS CORNER
        
        MEMBERS OF CONS. ASSEMBLY DEMANDED DELETION OF THIS
        BUT AMBEDKAR ASSURED THAT ART IS JUST FOR PRECAUTION... IT WILL REMAIN A DEAD LETTER
        
        BUT WHAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A DEAD LETTER IS USED MORE THAN 100 TIMES IN 70 YEARS
      - WHY?
        
        BECOZ IN INTERST OF RULING PARTY
        
        EXAMPLE
        
        1979 JANTA PARTY USE ART 356 AGAINST 9 CONGREES RULED STATES.. ON GROUND THAT CONGRESS HAS LOST THE MANDATE
        
        IN 1980: CONGRESS BACK IN POWER AND REPEATED THE PROCESS IN 9 STATES
      - WHAT IS IMPACT THIS ARBITRARY USE OF 356
        
        THIS ARBITARAY USE OF ART 356 UNDERNINED THE SPIRIT OF FEDERALISM... AND REASON FOR RISE OF INSURGANCY IN J&K AND PUNJAB
      - ORIGIN OF THIS ARBITRARY POWER
        
        ART 356 IA UNIQUE FEATURE ON INDIAN FEDERALISM... ITS A PART OF COLONIAL LEGACY
    - - THOUGH BY PREZ. ACTIVISM, JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, COIILATION GOVT. . HAS LED TO REDUCTION IN MISUSE OF ART 356..
        
        BUT MISUSE HASN'T BEEN COMPLETELY ELIMINATED AS IN CASE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH & UTTRAKHAND
      - SUPREME COURT ON ART 356
        
        SC IN S.R BOMMAI CASE 1994 HELD THAT FEDERALISM (& SECULARISM) IS BASIC FEATURE OF INDIAN CONS. NOT JUST FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONVINENCECS
        
        LAID DOWN STRINGENT CONDITIONS(2) FOR IMPOSITION OF ART 356
        
        1.SC MAY NOT SEEK WHAT ADVICE TENDERED BY COM TO PREZ. BUT SC MAY REQUIRE MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON BASIS OF DECISION WAS MADE
        
        MATERIAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE A SPEAKING DOC. THAT MAY COMEL A RATIONAL MAN TO TAKE ACTION
        
        TILL BOTH HOUSE PASSES RESOLUTION FOR IMPOSITION OF ART 356. . ASSEMBLY IS NOT DISSOLVED BUT SUSPENDED.. & IF SOME MALAFIDE INTENT OR BILL NOT PASSED THAN ASSEMBLY CAN BE RESTORED
        
        A.P & UTTRAKHAND 1ST CASE WHERE ASSMEBLY HAS BEEN RESTORED
        
        SC HELD ART 356 HAS LATENT CAPACITY TO DEPRIVE TWO BASIC FEATURES OF CONS.
        
        SO MUST BE JUST WHERE ITS NON-USE WILL HARM NATIONAL INTEREST. & NOT TO BE USED WHERE OTHER REMEDIES ARE AVIALABLE
        
        FEQUENT USE UNDERMINES THE FAITH IN DEMOCRACY.. SO IT OBLIGATION FOR PREZ . TO PRESERVE CONS. OTHERWISE IT WILL LEAD TO HAVOC
        
        SC. HELD "SOW A WIND - REAP A WHIRLWIND"
        
        WHAT TWO FEATURE OF BASIC STRUCTIRE THIS ARBITRARY USE HURTS ?
        
        FEDERALISM AND DEMOCRACY
  - - - THERE HAS BEEN INSTANCES WHERE UNION REINSTATED OFFICERS SUSPENDED BY CM.. SO SC DIRECTED CONSTITUTING A CIVIL SERVICES BOARD WRT TO MATTER OF SERVICES BY ALL INDIA SERVICES
      - CM HAS LIMITED POWER WRT PERSONEL OF ALL INDIA SERVICE.. WHO OFTEN ACT AS AGENT OF UNION..
  - - - THOUGH LAW & ORDER BEING STATE SUBJECT BUT:
      - 42ND CONSAA ADDED ENTRY 2A IN UNION LIST: UNION GOVT TO INSTATE ARMED FORCES IN STATES TO AID STATE FORCES
        
        (BUT SUCH ACTION IS TAKEN SOU MOTO BY UNION & OVER THOSE FORCES STATE HAS NOT CONTROL)
- - - - LIKE PREZ . HEAD OF UNION EXECUTIVE. ALL EXECUTIVE ACTION TAKEN IN NAME OF PREZ..
        ART 154
        SIMILARLY GOVERNOR IS HEAD OF STATE EXECUTIVE
    - - AS INDIA ADOPTED PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVT. AT UNION & STATE AS WELL WHICH REQUIRES A TITULAR HEAD.. SO AS PREZ AT UNION.. GOVERNOR NOMINAL HEAD AT STATES(REAL HEAD : PM OR CM)
    - - GOVERNOR HAS TO ACT AS CHANNEL OF COMMUNIACTION B/W STATES & UNION
        
        WHY??
        
        ACC. TO PAUL BRASS
        
        IT IS PRODUCT OF FEAR & INSECURITY THAT WAS DUE TO SECESSIONIST MOVEMENT AT TIMES OF INDEPENDENCE .. SO GOVERNOR HAS TO ACT LIKE EYES & EARS FOR UNION GOVT.
        
        DUE TO THIS OFFICE OF GOVERNOR IS CONTROVERSIAL
        
        INDIAN FEDERALISM IS NOT PRODUCT OF HOPES & OPTIMISM..
      - ACC. TO PUNCHHI COMISSION: ROLE OF GOVE. BECOZ OF GROWTH OF INTERNAL SECURITY CONFLICT: COMMUNAL VOILENCE
    - - SINCE INDIAN FEDERALISM IS PECULAR: INTERLOCKING SYSTEM(COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM NOT PURELY DUAL GOVT.)..
        
        SO ACC. TO SC "GOVERNOR WEARS TWO HATS ON A SINGLE HEAD"
    - - ACC. TO SARKARIA COMMISSION
        GOVERNOR IS LYNCHPIN OF INDIAN COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM
  - - - WHAT ARE DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF GOVERNOR
        
        EVEN . PREZ DOESN'T ENJOY MUCH DISCRETIONARY POWER.
        
        OR IN CASE OF HUNG PARLIAMENT
        
        ONLY SENDING BILL BACK TO PARLIAMENT FOR RECONSODERATION..(SUSPENSIVE VETO : ADDED BY 44TH CONSAA)
        
        ART 163: THERE SHALL BE A COM HEADED BY CM TO AID ADVICE GOV. EXCPT IN THOSE SITUATIONS UNDER CONS. WHERE GOVE. IS REQUIRED ACT IN ITS OWN DESCRETION
        
        2.FURTHER 163(2).. QUESTION WHETHER GOVE. SHUD OR SHUDN'T ACT ITS DESCRETION:- THE DECISION OF GOVE. IS FINAL.. & CAN'T BE CHALLENGED IN COURT OF LAW
        
        SO. ORIGINALLY CONS. ALLOWED GOVE. DESCRETION IS ABSOLUTE
      - DESCRETIONARY DOESN'T MEAN ARBITRARY POWER
        
        SC ON OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
        
        SC HELD GOVE. DECRETION IS SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW.. ON GROUND OF MALAFIDE INTENTIONS. .
        
        ACC. TO SC EXERCISE OF SUCH ARBITRARY POWER WILL LEAD TO BREAKDOWN OF ENTIRE EDIFICE OF DEMOCRACY
        
        TWO JUDGEMENTS
        
        SC IN NEBAM RABIA VS. UOI 2016(ON DISCRETIONARY POWER OF GOVERNOR)
        
        1.SC STRUCH DOWN THE ACTION OF GOVERNOR CALLING OF GOVERNOR: SUMMONING THE ASSEMBLY W/O AID & ADVICE OF COM
        
        2.SC. HELD UNION GOVT. ACTION IS "THRASING TO THE CONS."
        
        IF SUCH ACTION IS ALLOWED DEMOCRACY WILL NOT WORK
        
        SC IN HARGOVIND PANT & RAGHUKUL TILAK 1979(ON NATURE OF OFFICE OF GOVERNOR)
        
        GOVERNOR THOUGH HOLD OFFICE UNDER PLEASURE OF PREZ.. BUT HE ISNOT SUBORDINATE TO UNION
        
        SO GOVERNOR NOT BOUND TO ACT ON UNION'S DESCRETION..
        
        1 more item...
        
        GOVERNOR THOUGH APPOINTED & REMOVED BY UNION : DOESN'T MEAN HE IS EMPLOY OF UNION
        
        GOVERNOR IS INDEPENDENT CONS. OFFICE OF DIGNITY
        
        SC ALSO TAKEN ACCOUNT OF CONS. ASSEMBLY DEBATES
        
        SARDAR PATEL HELD: MINSITERIAL RESPONSIBILTY IS A FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE.. & GOVERNOR DESCRETION IN FEW CASES
        
        SO GOVERNOR'S SPECIAL POWERS CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO INVADE PRINCIPLE OF MINSTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
        
        WHAT ARE FINAL VIEWS OF SC ON DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF GOVERNOR?
        
        SC GIVES DOCTRINE OF HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION
        
        : AS ART 154 WHICH GIVES EXECUTIVE POWER TO GOVERNOR.. ALSO STATES HE HAS EXCERCISE POWER IN ACC. TO PROVISION OF CONS.
        
        1 more item...
        
        ACC. TO SC ART 163 DOESN'T TELL WHAT IT SEEMS TO SAY: SO GOVERNOR IS NOT ALL PERVADING SUPER-CONS. AUTHORITY
        
        EXPERT CORNER
        
        ACC. TO PUNCHI COMMISSION REPORT: IN DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY DISCRETIONARY POWERS IS LIKE SAFTY VALVE(USE OF POWER SHOULDN'T BE WHIMCICAL)
      - WHERE DISCRETIONARY POWWER IS EXCERCISED
        
        4 CONDITIONS WHERE CONS. REQUIRE GOVERNOR DISCRETION
        
        3.ART 174
        
        POWER TO CALL,PROROUGE & DISSOLVE SESSION OF ASSEMBLY
        
        ART 200
        
        ASSENT OR RESERVING THE BILL
        
        4.ART 356
        
        PRESIDENTS RULE BUT SC HAS ALREADY SETTLED THE ISSUE UNDER S.R BOMMAI CASE
        
        2.ART 201
        
        RESERVING BILL FOR PREZ CONSIDERATION
      - CONCERN OF STATE
        
        DESCRETONARY POWER BEING USED AS ARBITRARY POWER IN INDIAN FEDERAL POLITY HS BEEN CONTROVERSY OVER GOVERNOR
        
        SOME EXAMPLES OF MISUSE OF OFFICE OF GOVERNOR
        
        DURNING NEHRU'S GOVT. GOVERNOR IS USED IN ALL POSSIBLE WAY TO CHECK COMMUNIST PARTIES IN SOUTHERN INDIA
        
        LIKE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA.. DISSOLVED ASSEMBLY WHEN THEN CM OF A.P WAS ON MEDICAL FORGEIN TRIP
        
        RMOMESH BHANDARI UP GOVERNOR DISSOLVED KALYAN SINGH GOVT. & INSTATED JYOTHIBA PAL IS CM
        
        SC HAD TO INTERVENE & COUNTRY'S FIRST COMPOSITE FLOOR TEST TOOK PLACE
        
        IN 2006 GOVERNOR OF BIHAR BUTTA SINGH DISSOLVED THE ASSEMBLY EVEN BEFORE ITS 1ST ASSEMBLY DUE TO FEAR OF HORSE TRADING
      - EXPERT CORNER
        
        SOLI SORABJEE IN HIS BOOK GOVERNOR : SAGE OR SABOTUER
        
        ARBITRARY USE OF POWER HAS TURNED OFFICE OF GOVERNOR FROM INS. OF COOPERATIVE FED. TO BARGAINING FED.
      - ART 164:
        discretion of governor in appointing cm
        
        Karnataka legislative assembly elections.
        The role of governor came under question
        • It came under question that whetherGovernor should call single largest party to form the government and prove its majority in the House or a post-poll alliance to form a majority that overcomes the single largest party and form the government
        
        • Article 164(1) provides for the appointment of chief minister by governor.
        Supreme Court clarified that there is no qualification mentioned in article 164(1) , the only condition chief ministerial candidate need to satisfy is that he/she should be commanding majority in the house.
        
        • But this discretionary power is being misused by governors.
        It may encourage horse trading of MLAs,
        defections against the spirit of tenth schedule
        and decline in public trust in the office of Governor.
        
        • In case of Goa and Manipur, the single largest party was not given preference to form the government unlike in Karnataka. Thus, raising question mark on the role of Governor and also forcing Supreme Court to take cognizance of the issue.
        
        Sarkaria Commission and a constitutional bench judgement in Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India, 2005 held that:
        
        o The party or combination of parties with widest support in the Legislative Assembly should be called upon to form the Government.
        
        o If there is a pre-poll alliance or coalition, it should be treated as one political party and if such coalition obtains a majority, the leader of such coalition shall be called by the Governor to form the Government.
        
        o In case no party or pre-poll coalition has a clear majority, the Governor should select the CM in the order of preference indicated below:
        
        ✓ The group of parties which had pre-poll alliance commanding the largest number.
        
        ✓ The largest single party staking a claim to form the government with the support of others.
        
        ✓ A post-electoral coalition with all partners joining the government.
        
        ✓ A post-electoral alliance with some parties joining the government and the remaining supporting from outside.
        
        . ”.way forward
        
        The rules governing government-formation should be clearly specified in the Constitution itself as the Governor has enough discretion to skew the political process in the direction that the Central government desires
        
        The Governor must be true to the oath of office and must ensure that the person he/she invites to be Chief Minister will be able to form a responsible and reasonably lasting government in the State.
        
        Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in his speech described how a Governor should use his discretion not as “representative of a party” but as “the representative of the people as a whole of the State
    - - CONCERN OF STATE
        
        OVER THE QUALIFICATIONS OF GOVERNOR
        
        SO THERE WAS FEAR IN CONS. ASSEMBLY ALSO THAT UNION WILL EXCERCISE ITS CHOICE IN APPOINTMENT OF GOVERNOR
        
        TO WHICH NEHRU REPLIED THAT HEALTHY CONVENTIONS WILL DEVELOP & PERSON OF INTEGRITY WILL BE APPOINTED
        
        BUT INSPITE OF HEALTHY CONVENTIONS ... THE DEFEATED CANDIDATES IN ELECTION OR JUDGES ARE APPOINTED AS GOVERNORS.. EVEN W/O ANY COOLING PERIOD
        
        PERSON TO HAVE NO POLITICAL BACKGROUND
        
        PERSON FROM SAME STATE WILL NOT BE APPOINTED AS GOVERNOR
        
        WHAT IS THE REMEDY?
        
        SO QULAIFICATIONS OF GOVERNOR SHOULD BE FRAMED IN BLACK & WHITE
        
        WHAT ARE QUALIFICATIONS OF GOVERNOR ?
        
        ONLY TWO QULAIFICATIONS: CITIZEN OF INDIA & 35 YRS OF AGE
      - WHAT IS MANNER OF APPOINTMENT
        
        SINCE GOVERNOR IS APPOINTED U/A 155. UNDER HAND & SEAL OF PREZ. SO UNION GOVT HAS BARGAINING POWER
      - EXPERT CORNER
        
        .
        
        PUNCHI COMMISSION: RECOMMENDED TO USE OF INTERSTATE COUNCIL.. A PANEL IN ISC WILL SUGGEST THE NAMES AMONGEST WHICH GOVERNOR TO BE SELECTED
        
        RAJMANNER COMITTEE SUGGESTED THAT GOVERNOR TO BE APPOINTED WITH CONSULTATION WITH CM... IF NOT IN CM IS NOT CONVINCED THAT PERSON IS NOT APPIONTED
    - - AS GOVE. HOLDS OFFICE UNDER PREZ. PLEASURE SO GOV. CAN BY REMOVED BY UNION FOR POLITICAL GAINS:
        
        FOR EG:LIKE IN 1977 & 1980 SO SECURITY OF TENURE FOR GOVE. IS REQUIRED
      - SC. IN B.P SINGHAL VS UOI 2010 CASE:PLEASURE OF PREZ. TO CONTINUE
        
        BUT PLEASURE DOCTRINE CAN'T BE EXERCISED IN ARBITRARY MANNER ...(EVEN EARLIER IN BRIJ MOHAN CASE SC SUBJECTED LIMITATION TO PLEASURE DOCTRINE)
        
        POWER OF REMOVAL TO BE EXERCISED ONLY IN COMPELING REASONS..
        
        CAHNGE OF GOVT. OR IDEOLOGY OF RULING PARTY IS DIFFERENT THAT OF GOVERNOR.... THESE CAN'T BE GROUND
- - - - CONCERN OF STATE
        
        CONCURRENT LIST:. A KIND OF UNION LIST AS LAWS IN CONLICT CENTRE'S LAW WILL PREVIAL
        
        RESIDUARY POWERS WITH UNION
        
        ORIGNALLY :UNION LIST 97 ITEMS>> NOW 101...
        STATE LIST... 66 ITEMS>> 61 ITEMS..
        CONCURRENT LIST: 47 ITEMS>> 53
    - - ART 252:
        IF 2 OR MORE STATES (LEGISLATION BY INVITATION) BUT SUCH TRANSFER OF POWER IS PERMANENT.
        
        CONCERN OF STATE
        
        EVEN STATE GOVT. CAN'T REPEL SUCH ACT.. IT IS AGAINST PARLIAMENTARY PRINCIPLES.. AS NEWLY ELECTED GOVT. IN STATE HAS NO LAW ON LAW
      - ART 253
        : DISTRIBUTION OF POWER & FUNCTIONS NOT APPLICABLE IN INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & CINVENTION
        
        CONCERN OF STATE
        
        EARLIER NOT A ISSUE AS INTERNATIONAL ISSUES WERE STRATEGIC ISSUES.. BUT NOW EXPANDED TO CORE ISSUES LIKE AGRICULTURE IN WTO.. WHICH IS A STATE BUBJECT
      - ART249:
        RAJYA RESOLUTION OF 2/3RD MAORITY CAN ALLOW PARLIAMENT TO MAKE LAW ON STATE LIST(RESOLUTION VALID FOR 1 YEAR & ACT 6 MONTH AFTER EXPIRY OF RESOLUTION)
        
        CONCERN OF STATE:
        
        AS RAJYA SABHA IS NOT A TRULY FEDERAL CHAMBER(AS ACCOMDATES LOST POLITICIANS
    - - CONCERN OF STATE:
        
        ARBITARY EXCERCISE OF ACT OF RESERVING OF BILL..
        FOR EX : GUJRAT ACT TO FIGHT TERRORISM WAS RESERVED FOR 20 YRS. & SIMILAR BILL OF MAHARASTRA PASSED
    - - EXPERTS CORNER:
        
        SARKARIA & PUNCHI COMMISSION HELD
        
        THERE IS NO PROB IN PROVISION OF CONS.
        
        NO MAJOR AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED..
        
        PROB IS ARBITRARY EXCERCISE OF POWER