A rebellion in the Congress of Uttarakhand, a State in Northern India, has resulted to imposing the President's rule in an attempt to solve political turmoil and the failure of constitutional mandate.
The reason for the President's rule to be forced into the Congress was because the nine Congress legislalors and a minister had rebelled against the leadership of Chief Minister Harish Rawat. According to Indian Express summary of the nine days of political drama in the state, the Congress pushed for the Rawat's impeachment in the government. Rawat was accused of horsetrading and blatant misuse of money and power to manipulate the government. The Bharatiya Janata Party, the opposition party that is also against Rawat's leadership, had claimed that they were offered money to support Rawat's government during the floor test.
On the tenth day of scandalous exposures and accusations within the Congress, the President's rule was imposed in an unprecedented decision by the Centre, after a one hour meeting chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in final attempts to cut deep problems within the State's constitutional workings.
But what is the effect of having the President's rule?
According to Hindustan Times, Indian government's Article 356 invokes the need for President's rule wherein the state assembly will no longer function and the Centre takes direct control of the state. The state assembly only becomes authorized when approved by the Parliament. The executive power shifts from the council of ministers to the governor. But the President's rule can last only for a maximum of six months unless extended by the Parliament.
High Court Judge R.S. Sodhi is among the people who views the President's rule as a positive move to solve government problems. He said in the Times of India that, a fresh election is what the government needs. "Constitutional machinery has failed in the state and some saner element need to take over the administration of the state. I believe that it is a right and timely decision. Centre can't be a mock spectator in view of the recent allegation made in sting operation and he way in which budget was passed...Some remedial measure was needed before it became too late and the President rule is right," he said.
However, other parts of the Congress did not support the President's rule, denouncing the decision as a murder of democracy. For Ghulam Nabi Azad, leader in the Indian National Congress and former Parliamentary Affairs Minister of India, the President's rule was a display of authoritarian, anti-democratic and anti-Constitutional mindset of the previous Modi government.
The Congress will continue to challenge the decision in the court, as it would only worsen the workings of the second half of the Budget Session of Parliament.
Read more: India Pfizer stops cough syrup production
