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

Post a Comment

TRENDING

Plastic burning in homes threatens food, water and air across Global South: Study

By Jag Jivan  In a groundbreaking  study  spanning 26 countries across the Global South , researchers have uncovered the widespread and concerning practice of households burning plastic waste as a fuel for cooking, heating, and other domestic needs. The research, published in Nature Communications , reveals that this hazardous method of managing both waste and energy poverty is driven by systemic failures in municipal services and the unaffordability of clean alternatives, posing severe risks to human health and the environment.
Post a Comment
»

Economic superpower’s social failure? Inequality, malnutrition and crisis of India's democracy

By Vikas Meshram  India may be celebrated as one of the world’s fastest-growing economies, but a closer look at who benefits from that growth tells a starkly different story. The recently released World Inequality Report 2026 lays bare a country sharply divided by wealth, privilege and power. According to the report, nearly 65 percent of India’s total wealth is owned by the richest 10 percent of its population, while the bottom half of the country controls barely 6.4 percent. The top one percent—around 14 million people—holds more than 40 percent, the highest concentration since 1961. Meanwhile, the female labour force participation rate is a dismal 15.7 percent.
Post a Comment
»

The greatest threat to our food system: The aggressive push for GM crops

By Bharat Dogra  Thanks to the courageous resistance of several leading scientists who continue to speak the truth despite increasing pressures from the powerful GM crop and GM food lobby , the many-sided and in some contexts irreversible environmental and health impacts of GM foods and crops, as well as the highly disruptive effects of this technology on farmers, are widely known today. 
Post a Comment
»

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.
59 comments
»

UP tribal woman human rights defender Sokalo released on bail

By  A  Representative After almost five months in jail, Adivasi human rights defender and forest worker Sokalo Gond has been finally released on bail.Despite being granted bail on October 4, technical and procedural issues kept Sokalo behind bars until November 1. The Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and the All India Union of Forest Working People (AIUFWP), which are backing Sokalo, called it a "major victory." Sokalo's release follows the earlier releases of Kismatiya and Sukhdev Gond in September. "All three forest workers and human rights defenders were illegally incarcerated under false charges, in what is the State's way of punishing those who are active in their fight for the proper implementation of the Forest Rights Act (2006)", said a CJP statement.
Post a Comment
»

Urgent need to study cause of large number of natural deaths in Gulf countries

By Venkatesh Nayak* According to data tabled in Parliament in April 2018, there are 87.76 lakh (8.77 million) Indians in six Gulf countries, namely Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). While replying to an Unstarred Question (#6091) raised in the Lok Sabha, the Union Minister of State for External Affairs said, during the first half of this financial year alone (between April-September 2018), blue-collared Indian workers in these countries had remitted USD 33.47 Billion back home. Not much is known about the human cost of such earnings which swell up the country’s forex reserves quietly. My recent RTI intervention and research of proceedings in Parliament has revealed that between 2012 and mid-2018 more than 24,570 Indian Workers died in these Gulf countries. This works out to an average of more than 10 deaths per day. For every US$ 1 Billion they remitted to India during the same period there were at least 117 deaths of Indian Workers in Gulf ...
Post a Comment
»

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.
Post a Comment
»

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.
Post a Comment
»

'Restructuring' Sahitya Akademi: Is the ‘Gujarat model’ reaching Delhi?

By Prakash N. Shah*  ​A fortnight and a few days have slipped past that grim event. It was as if the wedding preparations were complete and the groom’s face was about to be unveiled behind the ceremonial tinsel. At 3 PM on December 18, a press conference was poised to announce the Sahitya Akademi Awards . 
Post a Comment
»