169 President's Proclamations [24 JULY 1973] relating to the State of 170 Uttar Pradesh This statement could not be made earlier as the information about this accident having not been inquired into by the Commissioner of Railway Safety was received subsequently. Mi. Deputy Chairman, Sir, during tlie last session STATEMENT BY MINISTER INDICATING also 1 recall that I had occasion to initiate the debate THE RESULT OF THE MARKET LO\NS on a similar situation arising in Orissa and I have FLOATED BY GOVERNMENT DURING pointed out that invoking article 356 to promulgate JULY, 1973. President's Rule in Orissa was something which was beyond the conception ol our Consiiunion makers. Today also it has fallen to my lot to open this MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : Shri- debate. I am 'il tiie definite view tliat promulgation ma i Sushila Rohatgi. of the President's Rule in Uttar Pradesh in the present circumstances is an out-righl fraud on the THE DEPUTY MINISTER IN THE MINISTRY Constitution. It was ue\e>' intended, article 356 OF FINANCE (SHRIMATI SUSHILA was never intended to be used in a situation of this ROHATGI): Sir, I beg to lay on the Table a kind. It has been very categorically stated in the Statement (in English and Hindi) indicating the Constitution and it has been very categorically result of the market loans floated by Government interpreted by all jurists and constitutional experts during July, 1975. [Placed in Librarv. See No. LT- that article 356 is to be invoked only when there is 5149/7S.] breakdown of the constitutional machinery, to solve a constitutional crisis. In Uttar Pradesh I think, on MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN : The House stands the admission of all including the Chief Minister of that State, there was no constitutional crisis, He said adjourned till 2-15 P.M. and he has written to the Governor and the The House then adjourned for lunch at Governor has himself stated in the letter addressed forty-seven minutes past one of the to the President that the Chief Minister enjoyed a clock. clear majority in the House—a clear majority. His majority had not been reduced to a minority leading to a political breakdown but there was certainly a The House reassembled after lunch at twenty party crisis in that State. A party crisis had arisen minutes past two of the clock, MR. DFJUTY which the Centre tried to resolve. The Congress High Command carried on negotiations with the CHAIRMAN in the Chair. Chief Minister for a period of over a fortnight, I suppose. There were several meetings he had with I. MOTION RE. REVOCATION OF THE the Home Minister, with the Prime Minister and PROCLAMATION ISSUED BY THE PRE various other leaders of the Congress Party but all SIDENT IN RELATION TO THE STATE OF the attempts failed to resolve this party crisis on UTTAR PRADESH which peihaps my colleagues, other colleagues here II. GOVERNMENT RESOLUTION SEEK er even on the oLher side would be able to throw ING APPROVAL OF THE PROCLAMA more light. What was the nature of the crisis? TION ISSUED BY THE PRESIDENT IN Perhaps the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Mr. RELATION TO THE STATE OF UTTAR Tripathi, was being pressed to drop certain of his PRADESH colleagues. The Prime Minister and the Congress Hiph r.mnm.iTHl wanted him tn resbiiflle 171 President's Proclamations [ RAJYA SABHA ] relating to the State of 172 Uttar Pradesh that wns given to the party was for political stability. 1 would take the libert) of quoting from tlie cabinci which he refused io do. He said that IM- the Congress manifesto ot 11)72 Ior the Assembly was not gcing to drop any of Ins coneagues. elections. It is said here: Perhaps Uic Congress High Command was im lined to throw hirn out also but they felt that il' Uic, threw 'The progress of our country demands a him out there would >e more serious rrisis jn the strong and stable governmenl not only at the party, in the State and, therefore, they were centre but equally ag and stable reluctant to do so. Whatever it be, this has been dear governments in the At present there is no to everyone who has studied and analysed the U.P. other political party which can provide such situation that in Uttar Pradesh there was no iiiinenls at the centre and in the States. constitutional erisis of any kind. It was a pure and The emergence of a strong and table Central simple part) crisis, internal party crisis, arising out Government enabled the nation io Taie of the internecine fueds oi: the party so that one can extreme challenges. i he need now is Ior strong say that the President's Rule in Uttar Pradesh has and stable ./> 11 imienls in the States so been tbe result ol the exigencies of Congress tbat tbe Centre ami the Stales can together carry- politics. It has nothing to do with what tlie on the uar against poverty and the man Constitution makers contemplated when they h towards puma urtliic swuraj to a incorporated article 356 in the Constitution. successful conclusion." Sir, even at the cost of repetition, I would like to state what Dr. Ambedkai had said .when members What do we see now? The spectacle before us is that in ihe Constituent Assembly objected to article 356 nearly one-third of the country's population today is itself that ihis was going to be abused In the Central under President's rule. Andhra was the lirst to Government to denigrate responsible governments (ome: Orissa followed, then came Manipur and now in the Stale. And this abuse could be for purely we have Uttar Pradesh, the biggest Slate in the political motives. Dr. Ambed-kar conceded the country, tbe State to which the Prime Minister validity of this objec,ion but went on to assure Ihe herself belongs. All thesi States have been put under Constituent Assembly thai this would be taken President's rule. As I said earlier President's rule has recourse to only as an ultimate measure and further been contemplated only in very extreme added thai so far as he was co itemed he hoped thai circumstances. I have tried to anahse and see what this article 356 would remain a dead letter. It bas not possible circumstances there cm be which would remained a dead Utter and if I were to quote president's rule. I have gone through various statistics, I think it is scandalous that during the 1st interpretations and tbe Constituent Assembly 7', years ever since Shri nati Gandhi Ii.is assumed debates and I can summarise three important factors. ollice—that is, in 7|- years Imm January-February is exactly failure of constitutional machinery? 1966 when she assumed office—this article $56 has Because the article says that only when the been invoked 22 times. And perhaps in the government of a State cannot be carried on in preceding wars it has been used about 10 times. And accordance with the provisions ni ihe Constitution they are doing this even after the 1972 election. I can ihe l'resideni invoke ai tide 356 and impose think everyone wiH agree wil Ii me that the main President's rule. I have here the Commentary on the plank of this election was thai t te only party in the Constitution by Basu. First ol all he says that this countiy which ian give stable governments in ihe article may be invoked where there is a political States is ihe ruling Congress Parly. Ihis was the breakdown smli as want of a stable majority io main plank on which tiu: ruling Congress fought form a Ministry, That is c irrtimsiaiirc \o. 1. the 1978 election and wo I il. The people trusted Circumstance No. 2 is this. Failure within Ihe that and the mandate meaning of the present article ma) probably arise also in case of abuse of i!i..' constitutional powers b\ a State Govem-ment. Even though it may have a majo- 173 President's Proclamations [24 JULY 1973] reli ting to the State of 174 Uttar Pradesh lity, if the State Government with tliat majority President becai ;e fie says that this is abuses iis constitutional powers even then the temporary. This is something which, as President is empowered to come to the conclusion a studenl of eons Itutional law. 1 am totally that there has been a breakdown oi the constitutional unable to understand. How can this machinery. Anil the third circumstance that strikes ppen? The C lief Minister who resigned me is this. When the Centre undei speedie articles of owning responsibility for one of tlie most the Constitution gives any direction to a State and disastrous failures of administration that the Staie refuses to comply with it then the Consti- have occurred daring the last twenty-five tution holds that defiance of such directives would years, this PAC episode. For one thing be tantamount to a breakdown of constitutional I think the PAC episode occurred primarily machinery. And the Central Government would be because of the ailinc ol intelligence. It entitled Io impose President's rule in that State. I assumed Ihis din ension because of the fail have gone through the letter written by the Governor ure of intelligent.- and, therefore, I am not of U.P. to the President. I find that none of these prepared to ond me tlie failure of the Cen three circumstances has been mentioned anywhere, tral Government in this regard.