Violations of Human Rights During President’s Rule: A Critical Analysis

Abstract

This paper interrogates the tension between the central government’s power to impose President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution and the potential for concomitant human rights violations. While conceived as a mechanism to safeguard against the collapse of constitutional machinery in states, the discretionary power granted to the Union government has demonstrably been susceptible to misuse. This paper argues that such impositions have frequently coincided with a surge in human rights abuses, often perpetrated with limited legal accountability. The paper dissects the inherent subjectivity within the grounds for invoking Article 356, potentially enabling politically motivated suspensions of democratically elected state governments. This is exemplified by historical instances in India where a change in central leadership has been followed by the swift imposition of President’s Rule in states governed by opposing parties, often on flimsy justifications. The paper delves into specific case studies, such as the period of militancy in Punjab during the 1980s and 1990s, where President’s Rule caused a rise in extrajudicial killings by security forces operating outside the ambit of judicial oversight. Furthermore, the paper examines documented instances of violence directed at members of the opposition during periods of President’s Rule in various Indian states. The paper emphasises the legal lacunae that contribute to a climate of impunity for human rights violations during President’s Rule. This includes arbitrary detentions without due process and prolonged detentions exceeding legal limits. Furthermore, restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly imposed under the pretext of maintaining order during President’s Rule further erode fundamental rights. The paper critically analyses existing legal recourse mechanisms and their limitations in ensuring effective accountability for such abuses. However, the paper also acknowledges the impact of judicial pronouncements in curbing the misuse of Article 356. The landmark S.R. Bommai case established stricter judicial scrutiny of the imposition of President’s Rule, particularly in the context of human rights abuse. Ultimately, the paper proposes a two-pronged approach: strengthening safeguards against the arbitrary invocation of Article 356 and fostering a robust framework for investigating and prosecuting human rights violations that transpire under its purview.