Centre's Sabarimala options: President's rule and more

After the Supreme Court's S.R. Bommai judgment in 1994, Article 356 (1) of the Constitution cannot be invoked as casually as Indira Gandhi used to when she was the prime minister. This is why BJP national president Amit Shah's statement that Kerala government could be pulled down invited more ridicule than anger.

No threat could have been hollower. Legal experts Onmanorama talked to were also unanimous that what is happening in Sabarimala does not warrant the imposition of President's rule. “No serious violence has been reported till now, and it will be to nobody's advantage to invoke Article 356 (1),” was the general consensus.

Powerless to enforce order

Yet, these experts point out that there is at least one circumstance laid down by the Supreme Court that the Centre could exploit to impose President's rule in the state. A state government's failure to meet an extraordinary situation, for instance an outbreak of unprecedented violence or great natural calamity. The Centre can make it seem like an abdication of the state's governmental power.

The Sabarimala violence looks like a prolonged one, with no end in sight. This can be interpreted as a sign that things are fast spiraling out of control. Travancore Devaswom Board's latest affidavit can come in handy. The affidavit, seeking more time to implement the September 28 order of the Supreme Court, states that it was not in a position to ensure the safety of women visiting the shrine this season.

In a sense, the TDB's submission sounds like the state had abdicated its power or is powerless to enforce it. A seemingly proper situation to invoke Article 356.

Further, some of the legal experts define the Sabarimala crisis, simply because of its prolonged nature, as having the potential to spread to larger areas for long periods and in a scale that would be injurious to a large number of people. Such a prolonged religious crisis, they argue, also has the potential to escalate into a major communal divide. Once again, solid grounds for the imposition of President's rule.

Centre's intervention

However, the legal experts argue that Article 356 can be used only as a last resort. On the basis of our interactions with legal experts, Onmanorama lists five steps that the Centre could adopt to solve the Sabarimala issue without resorting to the extreme step of President's rule.

One, while maintenance of law and order is a state subject, maintenance of communal harmony is the joint responsibility of the Centre and states. Therefore, the Centre has to provide support in terms of paramilitary forces and other assistance without direct intervention.

Two, set up a joint command in the event of an escalation of the situation under the Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Act.

Three, employ the emergency provisions or administrative powers of the Union, powers that are to be used highly sparingly. In Sabarimala, since the TDB has expressed its inability to ensure the safety of women, it can be used. But only with the consent of the state government.

Four, in situations where there is a threat of communal violence, there is a provision to send a delegation of five members of the National Integration Council to Sabarimala to understand the issues involved and give a quick fact finding report to the council. Obviously, the persons so nominated for this standing mechanism has to be personalities of impeccable record.

Five, if the situation goes way out of control, the Centre can invoke a rarely used provision called 'local emergency' under which a single district or two is brought under emergency rule. The advantage is that the state assembly need not be dissolved, and the law and order only at the local level will be the joint responsibility of the Centre and the state.

(via Onmanorama)