THE imposition of President’s rule in Arunachal Pradesh is an assault on the federal principle and yet another misuse of Article 356. The BJP government at the centre and the state governor J P Rajkhowa have played a sordid role in the whole episode. The political crisis in Arunachal Pradesh began in November last year when a group of MLAs belonging to the ruling Congress party revolted. They approached the governor for impeachment of the speaker of the assembly. The governor called for an emergency session of the assembly on December 16, 2015 to take up the impeachment motion. The action of the governor in advancing the winter session of the assembly and issuing directions for a vote on the resolution calling for the removal of the speaker violated all norms. The Guwahati High Court stayed the governor’s decision but later vacated the stay. The speaker of the assembly approached the Supreme Court, which referred the case to a constitutional bench. In the meantime, a `special session’ of the house was held in a community hall where the rebel Congress MLAs along with the BJP MLAs and two independents adopted an impeachment motion against speaker and a no confidence motion against the chief minister. This totally illegal assembly was not condemned by the governor. In retaliation, the speaker ordered the disqualification of 14 rebel Congress MLAs. This matter too went to the High Court where the disqualification was stayed. Against this decision too, the speaker approached the Supreme Court. All these petitions are before the constitutional bench of the Supreme Court. In such a situation, the right course to be adopted by the governor was to have asked the chief minister to convene assembly within a specified time and prove his majority. Instead, the governor submitted farcical reports to the centre claiming that there is a constitutional breakdown in the state. One of the reports cited the case of a “cow slaughter’ outside his house by the ruling party MLAs. The purported slaughter was not of a cow but a Mithun which belongs to the bovine species available in Arunachal Pradesh and whose meat is eaten widely in the state. The behaviour of the Arunachal Pradesh governor underlines the type of governors, the Modi government has appointed in the North-East. Most of them were selected for their RSS credentials. The Tripura governor, Tathagata Roy, for instance, makes the most inflammatory and communal statements through his facebook posts and twitter. The whole episode once again underlines the anti-democratic and anti-federal nature of Article 356 in the Constitution. The Bommai judgement of the Supreme Court in 1994 had sought to restrict its misuse. It clarified that the fate of a state government cannot be determined at the Raj Bhavan but only through a test of strength in the assembly. Further, the grounds for dismissal of a government and imposition of President’s rule is subject to judicial review. The BJP government has once again shown that, like earlier Congress governments, it too is willing to utilise this draconian Article for its narrow political interests. The Supreme Court should act promptly to protect the rights of the states and to check the blatant interference of the governor in the constitutional process. Both in the matter of appointment of governors and Article 356, unless there is a drastic change, the federal system and the rights of states will remain under threat. The CPI(M) has been demanding that a governor should be appointed by the president from a panel of three eminent persons suggested by the chief minister, satisfying the criteria mentioned in the Sarkaria Commission. This is the stand supported by many of the regional parties too. In the case of Article 356 of the Constitution, it should be amended to restrict its use to only where there is a serious threat to national unity, or, the secular fabric of the country. Till this is done, the guidelines provided by the Bommai judgment should be strictly adhered to. (February 3, 2016)