Article 355 and Federalism: Navigating Centre-State Relations in India

Understanding Article 355

Article 355 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision that mandates the Union government to protect each state against external aggression and internal disturbances. This article not only emphasizes the role of the Centre in safeguarding states but also empowers it to ensure that the governance of every state aligns with the Constitution's provisions.

The Relationship Between Article 355 and Federalism

Federalism involves a distribution of power between a central government and its constituent units, namely the states. While Article 355 supports the federal structure, it also skews the balance of power towards the Centre. This is primarily because it allows the Union to intervene in state affairs under certain circumstances, which can lead to friction between the Centre and the states, especially when such interventions are perceived as politically motivated.

When Can the Centre Intervene Under Article 355?

The Centre can take action in a state when there is a threat of external aggression or internal disturbance. Additionally, intervention is permissible if a state government fails to function according to the Constitution. This provision grants the Centre significant authority, which raises questions about its implications for state autonomy.

Judicial Interpretations of Article 355

The Supreme Court has broadly interpreted Article 355, permitting the Centre to undertake various actions to fulfill its responsibility of protecting states. Landmark cases like S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India have established that the Centre cannot invoke Article 356 (President's Rule) arbitrarily. Instead, it must justify its actions based on a clear breakdown of constitutional machinery within the state.

Concerns Regarding Article 355

The broad interpretation of Article 355 raises concerns about potential encroachments on state autonomy. There exists a risk that the Centre might misuse its powers under this article for political gain, leading to tensions in Centre-state relations.

Article 355 in the Context of the Manipur Situation

The ongoing violence and unrest in Manipur can be classified as an internal disturbance under Article 355. Although the Centre has refrained from invoking Article 356 (President's Rule), it is likely employing its powers under Article 355 to implement measures aimed at restoring normalcy and ensuring constitutional governance within the state.

Case Laws Shaping Article 355

• S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994): This case clarified that the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356 should only occur in cases of constitutional breakdown, not merely due to law and order issues. It highlighted the necessity for judicial review to prevent misuse of Article 356 for political motives.
• State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India (1977): Initially, this case provided a narrower interpretation of Article 355, suggesting its primary justification was for the use of Article 356.
• Naga People’s Movement of Human Rights vs. Union of India (1998), Sarbananda Sonowal vs. Union of India (2005), and H.S. Jain vs. Union of India (1997): These cases marked a shift in the legal stance regarding Article 355, broadening its interpretation to allow the Union to take any constitutionally valid actions to protect a state and ensure its governance aligns with constitutional mandates.

These judicial interpretations have significantly influenced the understanding and application of Article 355 in India, illustrating the continued tension between preserving the federal structure and ensuring effective governance by state authorities.

Conclusion

Article 355 plays a pivotal role in defining Centre-state relations in India. While it empowers the Centre to protect states and uphold constitutional governance, it simultaneously raises concerns about potential overreach and infringement on state autonomy. The current crisis in Manipur underscores the intricate dynamics associated with the application of this article.