Ethics in Public Administration

Introduction

Article 356, or “President’s Rule,” of the Indian Constitution enables the President to assume the administration of a state if the government is not functioning. This is a controversial rule that the central government can misuse. Since mid-1990s, the imposition of Article 356 has seen a decline. This discussion examines the legal and political factors that have led to this decline.

Legal Factors

SW2023-A9 | Supreme Court Ruling (S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994)

One of the major legal developments that had put a cap on the abuse of Article 356 is the Supreme Court’s 1994 judgement in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India. The court ruled that the invocation of President’s Rule necessitates the establishment of the failure of the government of a state. It also established judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to judge the legality of such decisions. The ruling had made it difficult for the central government to use of Article 356 without strong justification.

Judicial Scrutiny and Later Cases

In the aftermath of the Bommai ruling, courts have adopted a more alert and vigorous stance towards the validity of grounds on which President’s Rule should be invoked. Many subsequent cases have only strengthened the principles established in Bommai, leading to a more cautious application of Article 356. The risk that any ruling could be overturned, and a new judicial intervention, has deterred the central government.

Legal Reforms and Guidelines

The central government was forced to issue clarification on the procedure for invoking Article 356 in the wake of the Bommai verdict. Under the new guidelines, the Governor must now report to the President in detail the situation and provide evidence of government failure. These processes have improved transparency and enhanced the legal structure applied to the action of Article 356.

Political Factors

Multi-Party Coalition Governments

Since the mid-1990s, the bjp only controls a portion of the government, the rest under the control of a coalition of other parties. These coalitions are more heterogeneous and less centralized than single-party governments. Since they need the support of regional parties, they do use Article 356 (clamp down on states) with caution. Antagonising coalition partners makes trouble and so the centre is loath to impose President’s Rule.

The Politics of State autonomy and Regional Hegemony

I have access to data until October 2023. States can be more proactive in asserting their rights under the Constitution, very often galvanizing public and political support against the imposition of President’s Rule. This assertiveness makes it political risky for the central government to use Article 356 without strong justification.

Public and Media Watchfulness

A key function of the media is to hold the central government accountable. The media has audited the implementation of individuals leaving the measures under Article 356. Negative media coverage and public outpouring has given the central government reason to hesitate to invoke President’s Rule.

Consequences And Effects Of Political Actors

Because implementing President’s Rule could make political fallout – e.g., a loss of voter trust, and credibility. In a democracy, such actions could hurt the central government in the elections. Moreover, political parties are cognizant of these adverse impacts and thus, frequently pursue alternative approaches to remedy governance challenges.

Shifts in the Political Scene

India’s political landscape has been transformed since the mid-1990s. The decline of single-party dominance and the rise of regional and caste-based politics have made it far harder for the central government to justify recourse to President’s Rule. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha comprise of diverse political interests who would not let the central government take such an action easily.

Conclusion

There have been both legal and political reasons, which has led to a decline in the application of Article 356 since the mid-1990s. Separated by law, S. R. Bommai v. Union of India and closer court scrutiny have made the central government more accountable, and the process more transparent. On the political front, the emergence of coalition governments and increasing state autonomy have made the application of President’s Rule more cautious. Public and media scrutiny also forces the government to proceed carefully. These developments have made for a more robust democracy with a better balance of power between the central government and the states.

Judicial legislation: A challenge to the doctrine of separation of powers as established in the Indian Constitution

The Indian Constitution is of utmost necessity to the separation of powers doctrine, which demands balanced and efficient governance. This principle differentiates the functions and powers of the legislature, executive, and judiciary so that one branch does not encroach upon the others’ functions. The practice of the judicial legislature, which seeks to control rather than advise or perform the function of the law by passing guidelines and directives as though they are laws, has raised some disputable issues which constitute a real challenge against this constitutional doctrine. It could be justified, e.g., large-scale filing of public interest petitions seeking guidelines to be directed towards the executive authorities.

The Doctrine of Separation of Powers

The doctrine of separation of powers is very fundamental to constitutional law. It originates from Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of the Laws.” His premise states that these three main arms of government-legislature, executive, and judiciary- must be distinct and must work independently of each other. This principle is intended to prevent concentration of powers, thus ensuring that a branch does not emerge to be preeminent. In India, it has generally enjoyed implicit recognition within the Constitution via Articles 50 and 74, which pertain to the independence of the judiciary and the function of the executive, respectively.

Judicial Legislation: A Background Essay

When the court creates laws through the rulings it makes, that act is called judicial legislation. These may include the courts issuing guidelines, directives, and orders with the force of law and effect on mandated actions or policies by the executive. Beyond doubt, the courts will be sought to interpret the law and ensure that it remains constitutional, yet the creation of new laws through judicial pronouncements has normally been viewed as surpassing their legitimate province.

Public Interest Petitions (PIPs)

Public Interest Petitions, or PILs (Public Interest Litigations), have a unique position in the Indian legal system. They essentially provide a privilege for people or a group of people to file on behalf of the larger public interest, especially when executive inaction or issues of systemic reform arise requiring redress. Such PILs have played a significant role in ushering in many vital interventions to tackle environmental degradation, corruption, and human rights violations.

Rationale for Seeking Directions by Means of PIPs

The Inaction or Maladministration on the Part of the Executive: The continued inaction or maladministration on the part of executive authorities is, perhaps, one of the foremost reasons for seeking judicial guidelines in a public interest litigation. Instances abound wherein the executive, having failed in implementing its constitutional obligations, leaves grave issues unattended. The executive is for sure an essential ingredient in the whole scheme of constitutional governance. Judicial guidelines are indeed issued with respect to crucial matters so that the executive can act. For example, the Supreme Court has issued guidelines framing larger principle envelopes to control pollution and protect natural resources on occasions when the executive was assumed to have been negligent.

Justification for Filing PIPs for Issuing Guidelines

Safeguarding Constitutional Mandates: It is within the purview of the Indian Constitution to time and again call for certain obligations the state is duty-bound to discharge: that is to safeguard fundamental rights, to ensure social welfare, and to maintain public order. The executive headings of administration do not comply with these constitutional obligations, and all that the judiciary would do is to smoothen those uncompliant substantive laws—certainly not as overstepping of power, but as a necessary manager to foster compliance with constitutional dictates by the state.

Taking Care of Legislative Gaps In some circumstances, the legislature has been slow to pass laws or has left gaps in existing laws. In many instances, through public interest lawsuits, these legislative voids can be highlighted to the judiciary, which has stepped in to provide interim guidelines to fill the gaps and offer an immediate solution. In absence of comprehensive data protection legislation, for example, the guidelines issued by the judiciary have safeguarded individual privacy rights.

Encouraging Good Governance: Any guidelines issued by the court promote good governance by maintaining an ethos and precedent for the executive to follow. They certainly engender transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the administration of public affairs. Thus, by making it explicit as to what the actions of the executive may be, the judiciary streamlines the executive in acting in the best interest of the public.

Uplifting the Rights: Uplifting the Rights of the Marginalised Public interest litigations regularly expose to notice of the court the miseries faced by vulnerable and marginalized groups, who might otherwise remain without adequate means of seeking justice. In such cases, the protection and relief sought from the judiciary in terms of guidelines provide crucial enablement. For instance, guidelines that relate to improving the living conditions of slum dwellers or protecting the rights of migrant workers are critical in providing protection for the latter group.

Balancing Judicial Activism with Separation of Power

While the filing of PIPs for the issuing of guidelines is justifiable in myriad contexts, a balance needs to be struck between leaving space for the judiciary while not trespassing upon the legislative domain. The task of the judiciary must specialize on the interpretation and application of existing laws; new laws should not be made. However, in cases of well-developed executive inaction or gaps in the law, the judiciary plays a significant part in issuing interim guidelines to address pressing issues immediately and to prevent additional damage.

To help preserve the separation of powers, the judiciary needs to:

Encourage Legislative Action: The courts should recommend that whenever guidelines are issued, the legislature should take initiatives to enact suitable laws to address the problems in a comprehensive and long-lasting manner.

Respect Executive Discretion: The courts should respect the executive’s chosen discretion over administrative matters and exercise maximum restraint-in-fact as well as in the guidelines so that the discretion conferred on the executive is not fettered in any way.

Make Intrinsic Reference to Constitutional Mandates: Any guideline issued by the judiciary must be deeply rooted in the constitutional setup and extant laws so as not to be regarded as a case of overreach.

Conclusion

Judicial legislation, particularly in the issuance of guidelines by virtue of public interest petitions, poses quite a difficult question. While such enactments may arguably challenge the doctrine of separation of powers, they frequently arise as a warranted and necessary response to executive inactivity, legislative loopholes, or need-based considerations on the behalf of typically underprivileged communities. In the judicial balancing act-between its activeness and remarkable respect for constitutional limitations-the judiciary can continue to contribute significantly to good governance and the protection of rights in India.