A Constitution Bench on Monday held that there should be a reasonable nexus between the actions of the President and the object for which State emergency is declared under Article 356 of the Constitution.
The Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud was responding to arguments by petitioners that the proclamation of President’s Rule in the State of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 356 on the ground of failure of constitutional machinery on December 19, 2018, followed by the abrogation of Article 370, was constitutionally invalid.
Article 356 authorised the declaration of President’s Rule in a State on the receipt of a report from the Governor about the failure of the constitutional machinery.
Though the court said it could not sit on appeal over the President’s decision to abrogate 370, calling it a “policy decision” in the realm of the executive, it laid down ground rules to assess whether the actions or exercise of power by the Parliament/President during the emergency period were mala fide or not.
Also Read: Article 370 Verdict LIVE updates
Chief Justice Chandrachud, in his lead opinion, said the “exercise of power by the President under Article 356 must have a reasonable nexus to the object of the Proclamation”.
The court said the onus was on the person challenging the actions of the President during emergency to prima facie establish they were a “mala fide or extraneous exercise of power”.
The Bench laid down that, if a prima facie case was made out, the onus would shift from the person complaining to the Centre to justify that the exercise of power had a reasonable nexus with the object of the proclamation of President’s rule under Article 356.
Further, the Chief Justice held that the power of the Parliament in a State under President’s rule was not restricted to mere lawmaking. It also extended to executive action. The President had issued successive executive orders leading to the abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. The court made it clear that neither the President nor the Parliament would be “impeded by an absence of competence” while assuming the legislative powers of the State legislature pursuant to the declaration under Article 356.
The court said the actions of the Parliament, which assumed the role of the State legislature during President’s rule, was subject to judicial review.
“An immunity from judicial scrutiny does not attach to the exercise of constitutional powers of the Legislature of the State. The court while judicially reviewing the exercise of power can determine if the exercise of the constitutional power of the Legislature of the State by Parliament has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Proclamation,” Chief Justice Chandrachud said.
However, the court added that the exercise of power by the President for “everyday administration of the State” was not ordinarily subject to judicial review. This, the court said, would lead to chaos and uncertainty.
