Other States - Gujarat

Article 356 not far behind?

By Neena Vyas

NEW DELHI May 2. The Government today agreed to go along with the Opposition-sponsored motion in the Rajya Sabha, having already opposed and defeated the much milder motion on the Gujarat violence in the Lok Sabha two days ago.

The Rajya Sabha motion, under Rule 170 which entails voting, not only expressed a ``deep sense of anguish'' at the continued violence in Gujarat but, significantly, urged the Central Government ``to intervene effectively under Article 355 of the Constitution to protect the lives and properties of the citizens and to provide effective relief and rehabilitation to the victims of violence.''

In effect, by accepting this, the Centre today acknowledged in Parliament that the Gujarat Government had failed in its Constitutional responsibility and that effective Central intervention had become most necessary to protect the lives and properties of citizens.

The meaning of Article 355 of the Constitution, as Fali Nariman, Constitutional expert, explained on the floor of the Rajya Sabha, was that if it is invoked, ``Article 356 cannot be far behind.''

Anyone familiar with the Constitution knows that Article 355 serves as a warning to the State Government that it is on notice, that if it does not clean up its act the next logical (and Constitutional) step would be dismissal under Article 356.

The Government today did the impossible, it tried to defend the State Government and its own actions, and yet agreed that Article 355 must be invoked. One explanation offered was that it was not only trying to avoid defeat in the Upper House, which was certain given the political arithmetic, but it was also trying to salvage some of the prestige it lost when the BJP was attacked in the Lok Sabha by political foes and friends alike, with the sole exception of the Shiv Sena and the Defence Minister, George Fernandes.

And today it turned the logic upside down and defended the State Government after agreeing to serve it a stiff warning and put it on notice.

Cho's counter-argument

Our Special Correspondent reports:

Nominated MP, Cho Ramaswamy, disputed Fali S. Nariman's argument that Article 356 of the Constitution follows Article 355, under which the Opposition-sponsored motion wants the Centre to intervene in Gujarat.

Mr. Ramaswamy said in his opinion, Article 355 enables the Centre to guide the State while Article 356 is applied only when there was a breakdown of Constitutional machinery. Dismissing the demands for removal of Mr. Modi, he said, the Gujarat Government was taking steps and could not be dubbed as being ``communal''.

He also decried media coverage of the riots and said the trend indicates that ``media was no longer the fourth estate but the real estate.''

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Other States

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• `Gujarat riots have hit exports'
• Minorities panel launches peace moves
• Laloo demands Modi's arrest
• Article 356 not far behind?

Copyright © 2002, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu