President's Rule: Not Number Of Incidents But Gravity Of Incident That Matters

If the brutal rape and murder of a lady doctor in Kolkata was not enough to shake the collective conscience of 1.4 billion strong India, the nation woke up for another shock on this Independence Day (15 August).

The previous night, an unruly mob had attacked the hospital in Kolkata where doctors and students were protesting against the gruesome incident.

This leads us to the question: has the government of West Bengal failed to provide law and order in the state?

The tenor of press conference by Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on 14 August, 2024, and the way in which RG Kar College principal resigned taking ‘moral responsibility’ — only to be given another important assignment as the principal of Calcutta National Medical College and Hospital within hours, leads to serious allegations the West Bengal government appears more concerned with protecting the culprits than delivering justice.

The alleged cover-up by authorities, the suicide and depression theories, are all in public and I won’t stress much on them to save readers’ time.

Given that, asking the right questions is important.

The Calcutta High Court took note of these facts and questioned the state government on appointing the former principal of RG Kar Medical College to another institution soon after his resignation.

However, there is much more the honourable High Court could do. Like it deployed central forces for post-poll violence, it could have ordered the premises to be taken over by central forces to protect evidence.

No one can oppose the probability that evidence is not safe with authorities who are under state government. The attack by a mob further affirms it.

Not only HC, but the Centre also missed its mark in ensuring maximum safety. In the pre-1990s era, this would have been a fitting case for President's Rule under Article 356.

Though the power is now used more sparingly, there is still a case for it if the government wishes to do so.

The main question here is whether President's Rule under Article 356 could be invoked in such a situation.

The answer, according to me is, yes. It is not the number of incidents, but the gravity of incident which matters. Even a single incident may suffice at times.

In S R Bommai versus Union of India (1994), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court (SC) holding secularism to be a basic feature of the Constitution had upheld the dismissal of four Bharatiya Janata Party-ruled state governments after demolition of Babri Masjid structure.

Though the court in the aforementioned judgement (and judgements thereafter) has maintained that invocation of Article 356 is an extraordinary power and should be sparingly used and a single instance should not be used for imposition, but the text of the judgement can’t be read so narrowly and in isolation if the single incident is so grave that it amounts to breakdown of the state machinery.

Even the Babri incident was also an isolated one, but the imposition of President's Rule was considered good in law.

There is no bar in using the power till the President does it on the basis of material placed before him/her and not on mere political considerations.

However, understanding the fact that the route of President’s Rule can be politicised, is there no other way left for the Union?

The Prime Minister unequivocally touched upon the issue in his Red Fort speech. But why hasn't Article 355 of the Constitution, which provides an explicit power and casts a duty on the Union to "ensure that the government of every state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution" been invoked yet?

They could have used this power to deploy central forces to ensure order at the incident site.

It is still not too late to invoke these powers. There is a parens patriae duty of the state to protect its citizens. It has to be understood that the existence of delinquent mentalities in a society is not abnormal and crimes to certain extent are inevitable.

The problem is with the state standing on the side of criminals, or at least appearing to be doing so.

More than being a case of failure of constitutional machinery, this is a case of state machinery failing the society. This continues to be the situation when the matter is so much into public gaze. Imagine what would have been the scene in non-urban settings of West Bengal.

Social media outcry has ensured that the issue gets nationwide attention and the due credit for the same must go to the people. The only negative of such social media campaigns is that they essentially die over time or as and when some other issue takes the centre stage.

Understand that we have a very short memory, social media outcry would help, but if right issues aren't touched, we won't be able to ensure justice in the long run. Afterall, how many of you remember Shilpi Jain or Champa Biswas? If you don’t, try googling those cases.

Culprits in both Jain and Biswas cases enjoyed overt patronage from the government of the day. No crime protected by people in power should have fate like theirs.

Over the last few days, we all have been talking about the issue. In my discussions with many of my friends — all of them doing very well in different walks of life — a central emerging concern has been that it could have been, or could be anyone tomorrow — our sisters, daughters, anyone.

They say, “they have never felt this helpless ever before”. When I say ‘anyone’, I mean it because the victim here was a resident doctor; just as Champa Biswas was the wife of a senior IAS officer. Shilpi Jain was from an affluent family and a student of one of the best colleges in Patna.

For all the questions to the celebrities, activists and opposition leaders for not speaking on or taking up the issue, I would say it is nothing to be surprised of. This is not the first time they have chosen this course.

What is important here, is what course the Centre chooses.