Move to amend Art 356 stalled

Earlier, in his formal address at the third meeting of the Inter-State Council, the Prime Minister stressed the need for strengthening federalism through strong states as well as a strong Centre. However, Gujral felt that any hasty amendment to Article 356 may end up weakening the Centre’s powers.

The meeting, the third in the series after four meetings of the standing committee, was convened with the sole aim of reaching a consensus on Article 356 (which empowers the President to impose Central rule on states) and the devolution of financial powers including share of taxes from the Central pool to the states.

While there was no consensus on the controversial Article and the safeguards suggested to prevent its misuse, the Council managed to reach a consensus, albeit a reluctant one, on transfer of 29 per cent of tax from the central pool to the states, as recommended by the Tenth Finance Commission.

Although many states have demanded a bigger share, the Centre maintains that it can ill afford to increase allotment of money substantially. It will however review the situation by next December or January. In any case, the new arrangement means that the states will get an additional Rs 2,000 crore for 1996-97 and Rs 3,000 crore in 1997-98.On the issue of President’s rule, the Prime Minster had to intervene in the absence of any consensus on safeguards to prevent the misuse of the Article.

Gujral said, “In my opinion, we should leave it for the time being.”The safeguard recommendations included making it mandatory for the Centre to issue a show cause notice to the concerned state government. However, it could act on its own if the `secular fabric’ of the country was threatened, or if there was a threat to national integrity – particularly when facing external aggression.

It was also suggested that the Parliament should ratify the imposition of President’s Rule within a month of the proclamation, by a two-thirds majority, unlike the current requirement of just a simple majority.But many member-states had reservations on the proposed amendments.

At today’s Council meeting Rajasthan Chief Minister Bhairon Singh Shekhawat raised objections over the definition of `secularism.’ Some members felt that mustering a two-thirds’s majority in Parliament was impractical.

Most of the 20 odd Chief Ministers who attended today’s meeting agreed in principle to the necessity of retaining Article 356. But Punjab Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal who was the most outspoken, said his state was one that suffered the most because of the misuse of the Article by the Centre which had some prejudices against the Akalis.

On the other end of the spectrum was Defence Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav who was apprehensive about `dilution’ of the Article through the proposed amendments.