Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik has walked into legal minefield by dissolving Assembly already in suspended animation
FirstpostThe problem in Jammu and Kashmir is that the governor did not allow the alliance that claimed to have the numerical strength of more than 44 MLAs — the required strength in the Assembly to form the government — and prove its majority in the House, as is mandated by law. The political atmosphere in Jammu and Kashmir was charged up soon after Governor Satya Pal Malik dissolved the state Assembly after both the PDP-National Conference-Congress combine and the People’s Conference-led alliance approached him to stake a claim to form the government. In case of the failure of constitutional machinery in the state, Article 356 gives the President of India the authority to “make such incidental and consequential provisions” that appear to be “necessary or desirable”, including “provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to anybody or authority in the state, provided that nothing in this clause shall authorise the president to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a high court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to high courts”. Article 356 also says: “The Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of 30 days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution, unless before the expiration of the said period of 30 days, a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People.” The problem in Jammu and Kashmir is that the governor did not allow the alliance that claimed to have the numerical strength of more than 44 MLAs — the required strength in the Assembly to form the government — and prove its majority in the House, as is mandated by law. While overturning former Arunachal Pradesh governor Jyoti Prasad Rajkhowa’s decision to prepone the Assembly session, the Supreme Court, on 13 July, 2016, while referring to provisions under Article 163, had said: “Such exercise of independent judgment can only be questioned by way of judicial review.” The “independent judgment” it was referring to was of the state governor in this case.