State Emergency and impact on Centre-State relations

Context

The recent violence in Manipur has reignited discussions about the role of emergency provisions in India's federal structure and their impact on Centre-State relations. This debate focuses on the use of emergency powers under Articles 355 and 356 of the Indian Constitution, especially in light of the ongoing crisis in Manipur.

How is India’s Federal Set-Up?

India is a federal republic with a division of powers between the Union and State governments, as outlined in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution.
States are primarily responsible for maintaining law and order within their territories.

Emergency Provisions:

Emergency provision is a unique feature of Indian Constitution that allows the Centre to assume wide powers so as to handle special situations.
The emergency provisions are provided in Part XVIII of the Constitution.
The Constitution of India provides for three different kinds of abnormal situations which call for a departure from the normal governmental machinery setup by the Constitution:
- National Emergency (Article 352): An emergency due to war, an external aggression or armed rebellion.
- State Emergency or Presidential Rule (Article 356): Failure of constitutional machinery in states
- Financial Emergency (Article 360)
Articles 355 and 356 deal primarily with the affairs of government in a State under this part.
Article 355: It mandates the Centre to protect every State from external aggression and internal disturbance, ensuring State governments operate according to the Constitution. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary use of Article 356.
Article 356: It allows the imposition of President's Rule if a State government fails to function in accordance with constitutional provisions. This article is unique to India, as other federal systems like those in the U.S. and Australia do not have similar provisions for dissolving State governments.

National Emergency vs State Emergency (Key-Differences)

	National Emergency	State Emergency
Applicability	In situations of war, external aggression or armed rebellion.	In situation of failure of constitutional machinery in State
Effect	No authority to the Centre to suspend the Constitution in a state.	The Council of Ministers is dissolved, vacating the office of Chief Minister. Furthermore, the Vidhan Sabha is either prorogued or dissolved, necessitating a new election.
Fundamental Rights	It affects Fundamental Rights	It does not affect Fundamental Rights
Centre-State Relationship	the relationship of all the states with the Centre changes	the relationship of only one state where the action is taken changes with the Centre
Proclamation	Approved by the Parliament within 1 month and thereafter every 6 months and there is no maximum duration prescribed	Approved by the Parliament within 2 months and thereafter every 6 months, and the maximum period that it remains in force is 3 years.

Judicial Interpretations

Misuse of Article 356: Historically, Article 356 has been misused to dismiss elected State governments for reasons not strictly related to constitutional breakdown.
S R Bommai Case (1994): The Supreme Court restricted the misuse of Article 356, stating it should only be used in cases of constitutional machinery breakdown, and is subject to judicial review.
Widening Scope of Article 355: Subsequent rulings have expanded the scope of Article 355, allowing the Union to take actions to protect States and ensure constitutional governance.

Suggestions and Recommendations

Sarkaria Commission (1987) suggested that Article 355 should empower the Union to take necessary actions for State protection and governance.
National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002) and Punchhi Commission (2010) emphasized that Article 356 should be used only as a last resort in extreme situations.