Inter-state panel seeks curbs on Centre’s role

NEW DELHI, June 17: Seeking to end the misuse of Article 356, the standing committee of the Inter-state Council has proposed a Constitution...

NEW DELHI, June 17: Seeking to end the misuse of Article 356, the standing committee of the Inter-state Council has proposed a Constitutional amendment stipulating that the dismissal of any state government by the Centre needed the approval by two-thirds majority in Parliament.

The standing committee headed by Home Minister Indrajit Gupta reached consensus on the proposal at its third meeting held here today. It also agreed upon other recommendations, aimed at making it tougher for the Centre to impose President’s Rule on the states.

The committee also agreed that the Centre should be restrained from taking action against a state, until the state had been warned and served a show cause notice. The state government would be given a week’s time to reply to the charges.

Story continues below this ad

The committee, which includes six Chief Ministers, also agreed to go along — for the time being with the Finance Commission’s recommendation that the states should get a 29 per cent share of all taxes collected by the Centre. This translates into an additional Rs 5,000 crores to the states during the first two years.

But the states wanted more. They agreed to the alternative scheme of sharing taxes only after getting an assurance that the proposal will, for now, apply only to the financial years of 1996-97 and 1997-98. And there will be a review of the scheme this December or in January, ahead of the coming budget.

At present, the states get a share only from Income Tax and excise duties levied by the Centre — apart from assistance under several other heads. According to the proposal, all taxes collected by the Centre would be pooled. Most states have pressed for at least a 33 per cent share from the pool.

But on the issue of Article 356, the representatives of the Centre and the states were unanimous: they felt that the Article should remain, but with adequate safeguards.

Story continues below this ad

As it stands today, the Article requires that the imposition of President’s Rule on a state should be confirmed through an easy-to-muster simple majority in both Houses of Parliament within two months of the issue of Presidential Proclamation.

Insisting on a two-thirds majority will mean, in most circumstances, that the ruling group in Parliament will have to seek the support of the Opposition if it wanted to dismiss a state government.

And the standing committee has recommended the confirmation of the Parliament should be sought within a month not two months — of the Proclamation. Also suggested is a provision allowing 10 per cent of members of a House to call a special session, seeking the reinstatement of a dismissed Government.

Significantly, the committee recommended that only the Parliament — and not the Governor acting on behalf of the Centre — would decide if the state assembly should be dissolved or placed under suspended animation.

Story continues below this ad

The Presidential Proclamation itself will include the charges levied against the state by the Centre, as well as the reply given by the state.

Except in extraordinary situations, Article 356 will be invoked on receiving a report from the state Governor, the recommendation says.The proposals agreed upon today by the standing committee will be put before a full meeting of the Inter-state Council, which includes Chief Ministers of all states. Official sources said the Government aimed to convene the Council meeting before the beginning of the next session of Parliament.