Background:
Sidharth Luthra, a prominent senior advocate, has called for courts to act swiftly when Article 356 of the Indian Constitution is misused to impose President’s Rule in states. This provision grants the President the authority to dissolve a state government and assume control, but it has often been a point of contention in political and legal debates, particularly when used in what is seen as a politically motivated manner.
Court’s Rationale:
Luthra pointed out that there have been cases where states have remained under President’s Rule for extended periods, often without immediate judicial review. He stressed the importance of the judiciary stepping in quickly to evaluate whether such impositions are constitutionally valid. A delay in judicial intervention could allow for actions that may undermine the democratic process and the autonomy of states.
Existing Measures:
The Supreme Court has previously ruled on cases concerning the imposition of President’s Rule, laying down guidelines to ensure that it is used only under genuine circumstances. Despite these safeguards, there are concerns about how effectively and quickly these guidelines are enforced.
Conclusion:
Luthra’s comments reflect the growing need for a more responsive judicial approach when it comes to examining the use of Article 356. The swift judicial review of such cases is crucial to maintain democratic principles and prevent the misuse of executive powers to control state governments.