Opinion - Letters to the Editor   

President's rule

Sir, — Apropos the article `State-sponsored anarchy' by Arvind P. Datar (Oct. 12). While everyone agrees with the views of the author that there is violation of Articles 144 and 164 (3) of the Constitution by the Council of Ministers of Karnataka, the question of imposing President's rule under Article 356 in the present case of disobedience of the orders of the apex court is a matter for discussion. It is not the domain of the apex court to entertain such a plea as this is the domain of the Executive.

The Supreme Court is concerned only that its orders of October 4 and the earlier order of September 3 are implemented by the Karnataka Government.Any wilful disobedience of its orders would attract provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 and the persons at the helm in Karnataka have to face the action of the Supreme Court.

M.V.B. Sastry,

New Delhi

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

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

Stories in this Section

• Towards de-escalation
• Half-hearted exercises
• The ordinance on conversions
• Human rights and the police
• Review Kashmir policy
• Defining moment
• Terrorism and Islam
• In Thackeray's list
• President's rule

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