Madras High Court has ruled that a High Court, under Article 226 (its writ jurisdiction) of the Constitution, does not have the power to issue a direction to the Centre to invoke Article 355.
- The court passed the ruling while dismissing a writ petition which claimed that the constitutional machinery had broken down due to the attack on Income Tax officials by a mob.
Key points
- Article 355 enjoins upon the Centre a duty to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance besides ensuring that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the constitutional provisions.
- The judges said, Article 355 of the Constitution appeared to have been inspired both by Article IV(4) of the US Constitution and Section 61 of the Australian Constitution Act, which empower the federal government to “maintain” the Constitution, though the language was altered to make it more clear and specific with regard to the Indian context.
- Referring to various judicial pronouncements beginning from S.R. Bommai’ case (1994) dealing with Articles 355 and 356 of the Constitution, the first Division Bench said, the Sarkaria Commission Report too had explained that a whole range of action on the part of the Centre was possible under Article 355 depending upon the circumstances of the case, the nature, the timing and the gravity of the internal disturbance.
- The Bench said the expression ‘internal disturbance’ could only refer to a sense of domestic chaos, which could take the colour of a security threat from its associate expression ‘external aggression’ and that it would require a case of large scale public disorder which throws out of gear the even tempo of administration and endangers the security of the State.
