Skip to main content

President’s rule in Arunachal: Place reasons in public domain

Arunachal Pradesh Raj Bhavan
By Venkatesh Nayak*
The border State of Arunachal Pradesh in the northeastern corner of India in the news again – for all the wrong reasons – again. For several weeks crisis had been brewing over the existence or the lack of majority support for the Indian National Congress-led Government in that State. Thanks to the electronic media, video clippings of some meetings between some of the legislators and the Governor of that State showed the extent of distrust that exists between them.
On 26 January, 2016 after India celebrated its 67th Republic day, the President of India issued a Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution taking over the reins of the government of Arunachal Pradesh. Ostensibly this action was taken on the basis of report(s) received from the Governor and the subsequent recommendation of the Union Cabinet to the President of India about the “breakdown of the constitutional machinery” in that State. The President is reported to have sought some clarifications on the Cabinet’s recommendation before issuing the Proclamation under Article 356.
The entire matter is now before the Supreme Court of India. The Apex Court demanded production of the report(s) of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh that resulted in the imposition of President’s rule in that State. According to media reports the Additional Solicitor General is sought to have opposed the disclosure of the report(s) to the petitioners. Unfazed by this refusal, the Apex Court is said to have directed the production of the report(s) in sealed cover within a short period of time. Latest media reports indicate that the report(s) have since been submitted to the Apex Court in sealed cover.
The stance of the Additional Solicitor General seems to be in direct opposition to the stance taken in the past about the need for transparency of these reports by at least one senior member of the Union Cabinet, Manohar Parrikar, currently the Union Minister for Defence.

As Leader of the Opposition in Goa, Parrikar sought the Governor’s report under the RTI Act in 2008

In July-August, 2007 the political developments in Goa resulted in the then State Government losing its majority. Eventually the State was placed under President’s Rule. Manohar Parrikar who was the Leader of the Opposition then, sought copies of the Governor’s report(s) sent to the President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution. In September 2007, he is said to have filed a formal request for information under The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) with the Raj Bhavan. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of Goa Raj Bhavan rejected the request claiming that the Governor was not a public authority under the RTI Act and was therefore exempted from its coverage.
Eventually, the matter escalated to the Goa State Information Commission (SIC) which ruled in favour of disclosure of the Governor’s reports. The Raj Bhavan challenged the SIC’s decision before the Panjim Bench of the Bombay High Court. The single-judge Bench upheld the decision. That order was also challenged by the Raj Bhavan before the Division Bench (DB) of the Bombay High Court. The DB also ruled in favour of disclosure detailing why there must be transparency in relation to such reports. It rejected the contention of the Governor’s Secretariat that his position was akin to that of the King of the United Kingdom – answerable to none, being a sovereign authority. At all these levels, the RTI applicant who is currently the Defence Minister was defended by his lawyers who argued in favour of transparency and disclosure of the Article 356 report(s) of the Governor.
Finally in 2012, the Goa Raj Bhavan challenged the DB judgement before the Supreme Court of India making similar claims against disclosure. The matter was initially heard by a Bench headed by Justice Dalveer Bhandari. After he moved on to the International Court of Justice, there has been no effective hearing in this case. It has become a case of “tareeq pe tareeq” a la Sunny Deol in that popular Bollywood film, “Damini”.
CHRI has intervened in the aforementioned Supreme Court case to argue how and why the Governor is a public authority under the RTI Act. We also pointed out that the Rashtrapati Bhawan regularly responds to RTI applications. The Governor, therefore, cannot claim any higher privilege. Although written submissions have been filed, oral arguments are pending due to the repeated postponement of the hearing. In between, elections were held in Goa and Manohar Parrikar was elected Chief Minister. Obviously, there was no need to continue the litigation any more. CHRI wrote to him recommending that the Raj Bhavan be advised to withdraw the case to prevent wastage of taxpayer’s money on a non-issue. We are still waiting for a response to this letter. What is perplexing though is how expectations of and commitment to transparency change with a change in the chair that one occupies.

Should Article 356 reports be in the public domain?

The ultimate question is – should Governor’s reports be in the public domain. Under Section 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act, the government has a duty to disclose all relevant facts while announcing important decisions that affect the public at large. The decision to impose President’s Rule in a State undoubtedly falls in this category. Yet any reader will appreciate that the Proclamation of President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh contains no details about why such a step was taken.
It is difficult to believe that a report made under Article 356 of the Constitution will contain such explosive material that its disclosure in the public domain will be injurious to the public interest. In the case of Rameshwar Prasad & ors. vs Union of India & Anr. [Writ Petition (Civil) 257 of 2005] the Apex Court has cited the entire contents of the Bihar Governor’s reports sent under Article 356 to the President of India prior to the imposition of President’s Rule in that State, in 2005.

So unless it can be shown that disclosing the contents of the Arunachal Pradesh Governor’s report(s) under Article 356 can cause harm to any public interest which is recognised as a legitimate ground for refusal of access to information under the RTI Act, it must be placed in the public domain so that people may appreciate the circumstances that led to the decision and also debate its necessity in an informed manner.

Earlier this week, I have sought copies of all correspondence including the Article 356 report(s) relating to Arunachal Pradesh under the RTI Act as a test case. Now that the documents stand submitted to the Apex Court in sealed cover, we must wait for the Court to decide on disclosure of the report(s) to the petitioners and other parties. The fate of my RTI will also depend on the Apex Court’s decision. Until then it is a “Quest for Transparency” as mentioned on the Prime Minister’s website.



*Programme Coordinator, Access to Information Programme, Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative, New Delhi

Comments

TRENDING

Whither space for the marginalised in Kerala's privately-driven townships after landslides?

By Ipshita Basu, Sudheesh R.C.  In the early hours of July 30 2024, a landslide in the Wayanad district of Kerala state, India, killed 400 people. The Punjirimattom, Mundakkai, Vellarimala and Chooralmala villages in the Western Ghats mountain range turned into a dystopian rubble of uprooted trees and debris.

Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar’s views on religion as Tagore’s saw them

By Harasankar Adhikari   Religion has become a visible subject in India’s public discourse, particularly where it intersects with political debate. Recent events, including a mass Gita chanting programme in Kolkata and other incidents involving public expressions of faith, have drawn attention to how religion features in everyday life. These developments have raised questions about the relationship between modern technological progress and traditional religious practice.

Election bells ringing in Nepal: Can ousted premier Oli return to power?

By Nava Thakuria*  Nepal is preparing for a national election necessitated by the collapse of KP Sharma Oli’s government at the height of a Gen Z rebellion (youth uprising) in September 2025. The polls are scheduled for 5 March. The Himalayan nation last conducted a general election in 2022, with the next polls originally due in 2027.  However, following the dissolution of Nepal’s lower house of Parliament last year by President Ram Chandra Poudel, the electoral process began under the patronage of an interim government installed on 12 September under the leadership of retired Supreme Court judge Sushila Karki. The Hindu-majority nation of over 29 million people will witness more than 3,400 electoral candidates, including 390 women, representing 68 political parties as well as independents, vying for 165 seats in the 275-member House of Representatives.

Gig workers hold online strike on republic day; nationwide protests planned on February 3

By A Representative   Gig and platform service workers across the country observed a nationwide online strike on Republic Day, responding to a call given by the Gig & Platform Service Workers Union (GIPSWU) to protest what it described as exploitation, insecurity and denial of basic worker rights in the platform economy. The union said women gig workers led the January 26 action by switching off their work apps as a mark of protest.

Jayanthi Natarajan "never stood by tribals' rights" in MNC Vedanta's move to mine Niyamigiri Hills in Odisha

By A Representative The Odisha Chapter of the Campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD), which played a vital role in the struggle for the enactment of historic Forest Rights Act, 2006 has blamed former Union environment minister Jaynaynthi Natarjan for failing to play any vital role to defend the tribals' rights in the forest areas during her tenure under the former UPA government. Countering her recent statement that she rejected environmental clearance to Vendanta, the top UK-based NMC, despite tremendous pressure from her colleagues in Cabinet and huge criticism from industry, and the claim that her decision was “upheld by the Supreme Court”, the CSD said this is simply not true, and actually she "disrespected" FRA.

With infant mortality rate of 5, better than US, guarantee to live is 'alive' in Kerala

By Nabil Abdul Majeed, Nitheesh Narayanan   In 1945, two years prior to India's independence, the current Chief Minister of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan, was born into a working-class family in northern Kerala. He was his mother’s fourteenth child; of the thirteen siblings born before him, only two survived. His mother was an agricultural labourer and his father a toddy tapper. They belonged to a downtrodden caste, deemed untouchable under the Indian caste system.

Stands 'exposed': Cavalier attitude towards rushed construction of Char Dham project

By Bharat Dogra*  The nation heaved a big sigh of relief when the 41 workers trapped in the under-construction Silkyara-Barkot tunnel (Uttarkashi district of Uttarakhand) were finally rescued on November 28 after a 17-day rescue effort. All those involved in the rescue effort deserve a big thanks of the entire country. The government deserves appreciation for providing all-round support.

Ganga-Jamuni Tehzeeb: Akbar to Shivaji -- the cross-cultural alliances that built India

​ By Ram Puniyani   ​What is Indian culture? Is it purely Hindu, or a blend of many influences? Today, Hindu right-wing advocates of Hindutva claim that Indian culture is synonymous with Hindu culture, which supposedly resisted "Muslim invaders" for centuries. This debate resurfaced recently in Kolkata at a seminar titled "The Need to Protect Hinduism from Hindutva."

Report finds 28 communal riots, 14 mob lynching incidents targeting Muslims

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  A study released by the Mumbai-based Centre for Study of Society and Secularism (CSSS), supported by data from India Hate Lab, documents incidents of violence and targeting of Muslims across India in 2025. The report compiles press accounts and fact-finding material to highlight broad trends in communal conflict, mob attacks, and hate speech.