💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

GS Paper: Federalism

  • Article 244 (A) of the Constitution

    A national party leader has promised to implement Article 244 (A) of the Constitution to safeguard the interests of the people in Assam’s tribal-majority districts.

    What is Article 244(A)?

    • Article 244(A) allows for the creation of an ‘autonomous state’ within Assam in certain tribal areas.
    • Inserted into the Constitution in 1969 by the then government, it also has a provision for a Legislature and a Council of Ministers.

    Try this PYQ from CSP 2018:

    Q.The Government enacted the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act in 1996. Which one of the following is not identified as its objective?

    (a) To provide self-governance

    (b) To recognize traditional rights

    (c) To create autonomous regions in tribal areas

    (d) To free tribal people from exploitation

    How is it different from the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution?

    • The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution — Articles 244(2) and 275(1) — is a special provision that allows for greater political autonomy and decentralized governance.
    • It is applicable to certain tribal areas of the Northeast through autonomous councils that are administered by elected representatives.
    • Article 244(A) accounts for more autonomous powers to tribal areas.
    • In Autonomous Councils under the Sixth Schedule, they do not have jurisdiction of law and order.

    How did the demand arise?

    • In the 1950s, a demand for a separate hill state arose around certain sections of the tribal population of undivided Assam.
    • In 1960, various political parties of the hill areas merged to form the All Party Hill Leaders Conference, demanding a separate state.
    • After prolonged agitations, Meghalaya gained statehood in 1972.
    • The leaders of the Karbi Anglong and North Cachar Hills were also part of this movement. They were given the option to stay in Assam or join Meghalaya.
    • They stayed back as the then government promised more powers, including Article 244 (A). Since then, there has been a demand for its implementation.
    • In the 1980s, this demand took the form of a movement with a number of Karbi groups resorting to violence. It soon became an armed separatist insurgency demanding full statehood.

  • Ending ambiguity in Delhi government through amendment to NCT Act

    The article highlights the objectives of amendments to the Government of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi Act.

    Background of Article 239AA and 239AB

    • On December 20, 1991, Home Minister S B Chavan tabled the Constitution Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha to add Article 239AA and 239AB to our Constitution.
    • The Bill was passed unanimously with all 349 members in the Lok Sabha supporting the bill.
    • The amendment paved the way for setting up a legislative assembly and a council of ministers for the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi.

    What the recent amendment to NCT Act seeks to achieve

    • The amendments aimed to clear ambiguities in the roles of various stakeholders.
    • It also seeks to provide a constructive rules-based framework for stakeholders within the government of Delhi to work in tandem with the Union government.
    • The amendment that was passed by Parliament aims to bring in consistency that the Delhi government has acknowledged and course-corrected on.
    • As the Act now has the President’s assent, we also need to ensure that the LG is made more accountable.
    • This can be done by stipulating a maximum time limit to decide on matters that are referred to the LG in the case of legislative proposals and administrative matters in the rules.
    • The constitutional amendment passed in 1991 empowers the Parliament to enact laws supplementing constitutional provisions.
    • Similarly, the Government of NCT of Delhi also has the power to enact laws regarding matters specified under the state list and concurrent list, to the extent these apply to a Union territory.
    •  In the case of the Government of NCT of Delhi, it has no legislative competence in matters pertaining to the police, public order, and land, which are in the state list but do not apply to Union Territories.
    • The risk of incremental encroachments on these subjects by the Delhi Legislative Assembly can have severe ramifications for Delhi.
    • Similarly, making the Delhi assembly rules consistent with the rules of the Lok Sabha or ensuring that the opinion of the LG is taken can only ensure clarity and foster an environment of co-operation.

    Promoting cooperative federalism

    • The government has been promoting cooperative federalism, which is evident from the tangible steps that have been taken.
    • The creation of NITI Aayog, the establishment of the GST council, and the restructuring of central schemes are clear examples of promoting fiscal federalism.
    • Cooperative federalism requires an environment of trust and mutual cooperation.
    • A necessary condition for such an environment is the distinct delineation of roles and responsibilities, the removal of ambiguities, and the definition of a clear chain of command among stakeholders.
    • In this regard, it was important to define, without a doubt, who represents the government in the unique case of Delhi.

    Consider the question “What are the objectives of the recent amendment to the NCT Act? What will be its implications for governance in Delhi?” 

    Conclusion

    Our national capital hosts the country’s legislature, the seat of the Union government, the judiciary, diplomatic missions, and other institutions of national importance. It deserves smooth functioning and cannot be subject to misadventures arising from the ambiguities in the roles and responsibilities of its stakeholders.

  • National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) moved the NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021 to the Lok Sabha where it proposed that “government” in Delhi means the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi.

    What is the news?

    • The Bill gives discretionary powers to the L-G of Delhi even in matters where the Legislative Assembly of Delhi is empowered to make laws.
    • The Delhi state govt has criticized the bill saying that it seeks to drastically curtail powers of the elected government”, which is “against” the Supreme Court judgment of 2018.

    NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Bill, 2021

    • Among the major proposed amendments, one makes it explicitly clear that the term “government” in any law made by the Legislative Assembly shall mean the L-G.
    • This, essentially, gives effect to the former L-G 2015 assertion that “Government means the Lieutenant Governor of the NCT of Delhi appointed by the President under Article 239 and designated as such under Article 239 AA of the Constitution”.
    • The Bill adds that the L-G’s opinion shall be obtained before the government takes any executive action based on decisions taken by the Cabinet or any individual minister.

    What purpose does the 1991 Act serve?

    • Delhi’s current status as a UT with a Legislative Assembly is an outcome of the 69th Amendment Act through which Articles 239AA and 239BB were introduced in the Constitution.
    • The Act was passed simultaneously to supplement the constitutional provisions relating to the Assembly and the Council of Ministers in the national capital.
    • For all practical purposes, it outlined the powers of the Assembly, the discretionary powers enjoyed by the L-G, and the duties of the CM with respect to the need to furnish information to the L-G.

    What is the 2018 Supreme Court Verdict?

    • In its 2018 verdict, the five-judge Bench had held that the LG’s concurrence is not required on issues other than police, public order and land.
    • It had added that decisions of the Council of Ministers will, however, have to be communicated to the LG.
    • The L-G was bound by the aid and advice if the council of ministers, it had said.
    • The Bench of then CJI status of the LG of Delhi is not that of a Governor of a State, rather he remains an Administrator, in a limited sense, working with the designation of Lieutenant Governor”.
    • It had also pointed out that the elected government must keep in mind that Delhi is not a state.

    Consider the question “What are the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the Government of NCT of Delhi vs. Union of India (2018) to avoid the conflict between Lt. Governor and the Delhi Government? Also examine the scope of referring any matter to the consideration of the President by the Lt. Governor.”

    What will change if the amendments are cleared by Parliament?

    • Encouraged by the Supreme Court verdict, the elected government had stopped sending files on executive matters to the L-G before the implementation of any decision.
    • It has been keeping the L-G abreast of all administrative developments, but not necessarily before implementing or executing any decision.
    • But the amendment, if cleared, will force the elected government to take the L-G’s advice before taking any action on any cabinet decision.
    • The Bill seeks to bar the Assembly or its committees from making rules to take up matters concerning day-to-day administration, or to conduct inquiries in relation to administrative decisions.

    Does the L-G enjoy no discretionary power under the current arrangement?

    • The L-G does have the power to refer any matter, over which there is a disagreement with the elected government, to the President under Article 239AA (4).
    • The Delhi Law Secretary had in 2019 written in an internal memo that the elected government cannot use the SC verdict to keep the L-G in the dark about its decisions.
    • But the SC had also categorically pointed out that the L-G should not act in a mechanical manner without due application of mind so as to refer every decision of the CM to the President.

    What are the state government’s fears?

    • From 2015 to 2018, the government was engaged in a constant battle with the Centre over policy decisions and the powers of the L-G with the elected government.
    • The SC judgment gave the Delhi govt a freer hand in terms of policy decisions.
    • The government insiders have maintained that it was because of the judgment that the government was able to clear policy decisions like giving free power to those using under 200 units, free bus rides for women.
    • The amendments will have far-reaching implications — beyond just the tussle between any political parties.

    Back2Basics: Special Status for New Delhi

    • Article 239AA of the Constitution of India granted Special Status to Delhi among Union Territories (UTs) in the year 1991 through the 69th constitutional amendment.
    • It provided a Legislative Assembly and a Council of Ministers responsible to such Assembly with appropriate powers.
    • That’s when Delhi was named as the National Capital Region (NCT) of Delhi.
    • As per this article – Public Order, Police & Land in NCT of Delhi fall within the domain and control of Central Government which shall have the power to make laws on these matters.
    • For remaining matters of State List or Concurrent List, in so far as any such matter is applicable to UTs, the Legislative Assembly shall have the power to make laws for NCT of Delhi.

  • How scarcity of jobs is fuelling nativism in the States

    The article examines the factors contributing to the States pursuing domicile based employment policies.

    What is driving states to provide reservation to locals in private jobs

    • The Haryana government has recently passed legislation that mandates companies in Haryana to provide jobs to local Haryanvis first.
    • The unemployment rate in Haryana is the highest of all States in India, as per data from the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, or CMIE.
    • The cabinet of the government of Jharkhand approved similar legislation to reserve jobs for Jharkhand residents.
    • The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu announced a similar proposal in its manifesto for the upcoming Assembly elections.
    • Such moves have attracted criticism from economists and commentators
    • Creating more jobs, not on reserving the few available ones’ is the popular refrain.
    • Creation of new jobs is not entirely in the control of State governments. It is a complex interplay of multitude of factors.

    Factors playing role in job creation

    • Job creation is obviously an outcome of the performance of the larger economy.
    • Chief Minister of a State in India has limited control over the management of the larger economy and thereby, attract new investors and businesses who can create jobs.
    • Businesses need abundant high quality skilled and unskilled labour, land at affordable prices, uninterrupted supply of electricity, water and other such ‘ease of business’ facilities for its expansion.
    • State governments in India can theoretically compete with each on these parameters.
    • Further, any tax advantages that a particular State can provide vis-à-vis others will increase its attractiveness.
    • But, realistically in India, in very few of these parameters can a poorer State compete against a richer State.

    Issues faced by the States

    • The availability of skilled local labour is a function of many decades of social progress of the State and cannot be retooled immediately.
    • After the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), State governments in India have lost their fiscal autonomy and have no powers to provide any tax concessions to businesses.
    • Beyond all these, the most critical factor in the choice of a location for a large business is what economists term as the ‘agglomeration effect’
    • Agglomeration effect is the ecosystem of supply chain, talent, good living conditions and so on attracting the other businesses.
    • So, a State with an already well-established network of suppliers, people, schools, etc. are at a greater advantage to attract even more businesses.
    • It is due to this agglomeration effect that the three richest large States (Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka) are three times richer than the three poorest large States (Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh), in per-capita income, compared to 1.4 times in 1970.
    • In the absence of a level playing field and with no fiscal autonomy, it is enormously difficult for developing States in India to attract new investments and create new jobs.

    Consider the question “Examine the factors contributing to the nativist tendencies in the employment within the States. Suggest the measures to deal with the issue.”

    Conclusion

    Until the economic playing fields for the various States are levelled and much greater fiscal freedom provided to the States, “don’t protect but create jobs” will only remain a topic of a hollow lecture and moral sermons.

  • The perils of domicile-based preferential policies

    The Haryana government is considering a Bill that provides for 75 per cent reservation to the residents of the state. This article discusses the challenge such policies poses.

    Domicile-based preferential policies on rise

    • The Haryana government’s State Employment of Local Candidates Bill 2020 reserves 75 per cent of new jobs in private establishments for Haryana residents.
    • Andhra Pradesh has mandated 75 per cent reservation for locals.
    • Karnataka is considering reserving all blue-collar jobs for locals.
    • Madhya Pradesh has announced that public employment in the state be reserved for state residents.

    Constitutionality of such policies

    • The Constitution prohibits discrimination based on place of birth.
    • The right to move freely in the country and reside and settle in any part of it, the right to carry out any trade or profession, are all established rights.
    • Article 16(3) does, in principle, enable Parliament [ not state legislature] to provide for domicile-based preferential treatment in public employment.

    Judicial scrutiny

    • The constitutionality of domicile-based employment preferences (unlike preferences in education) has never been frontally tested.
    • But almost all the existing case law that impinges on the matter clearly indicates such laws are unconstitutional.
    • In Pradeep Jain vs Union of India, the court had indicated this direction; in Kailash Chandra Sharma vs State of Rajasthan, the court had warned against parochialism.
    • The Andhra Pradesh Bill is sub judice in the high court.

    Issues with the policies

    • The Supreme Court will hopefully rule on the constitutionality of the  Haryana government’s Bill.
    • But the Bill has ramifications beyond constitutionality.
    • First, because this kind of constitutional cynicism is now not an exception but has become a contagion.
    • Second, even if the Bill is struck down, such a high wire act is meant to fuel the flames of localism.
    • Third, the Bill now exposes the bad faith of political parties on private sector reservation more generally.
    • Fourth, these bills will open up a new form of competitive ethnic politics.
    • It is odd that a state like Haryana which has benefitted from being part of a cosmopolitan zone like NCR should unilaterally impose reservations.
    • Fifth, there is patent class discrimination: If you are rich, privileged or highly skilled, there are no entry barriers in accessing any labour market.
    • But we shall put entry barriers on lower skilled migrants; our own internal version of an H-1B visa.
    • The greatest damage the Bill does is to increase the discretionary power of the state, almost taking us back to a license permit raj, where companies will have to bargain, or worse, bribe the state for exemptions.
    • This is the antithesis of regulatory reform.

    Consider the question “There have been growing tendencies among the states to pursue domicile-based preferential policies. What are the issues related to such policies?”

    Conclusion

    But the fact that states feel the need to enact these bills is an indictment of the economy as a whole: They suggest a pessimism about both education and job creation. So we have returned to a world of zero sum thinking.

  • Demand for Greater Tipraland

    Tripura royal scion Pradyot Kishore Manikya has recently announced his political demand for a new state called ‘Greater Tipraland’.

    Try this:

    Q.New-age ethnic politics in North East is driving demands for separate statehood movements in India. Discuss.

    What is Greater Tipraland?

    • ‘Greater Tipraland’ is essentially an extension of the ruling tribal partner Indigenous Peoples Front of Tripura – IPFT’s demand of Tipraland, which sought a separate state for tribals of Tripura.
    • The new demand seeks to include every tribal person living in an indigenous area or village outside the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) under the proposed model.
    • However, the idea doesn’t restrict to simply the Tripura tribal council areas but seeks to include ‘Tiprasa’ of Tripuris spread across different states of India like Assam, Mizoram etc. as well.
    • It seeks to include even those living in Bandarban, Chittagong, Khagrachari and other bordering areas of neighbouring Bangladesh.

  • Andhra-Odisha Boundary Dispute

    Andhra Pradesh recently held panchayat elections in three villages in the Kotia cluster, which is at the centre of a dispute between Andhra Pradesh and Odisha.

    Do you know?

    Sukma district of Chhattisgarh borders with Odisha (Malkangiri district), Telangana (Bhadradri Kothagudem district) and Andhra Pradesh (East Godavari district).

    You got it right. Thers’ a junction. AP and Telangana , both borders with Chhattisgarh.

    Andhra-Odisha Boundary Dispute

    • Prior to April 1, 1936, villages under Kotia panchayat were part of Jeypore Estate.
    • In the Constitution of Orrisa Order, 1936, published in the Gazette of India on March 19 that year, the GoI demarcated Odisha from the erstwhile Madras Presidency.
    • In 1942, the Madras government contested the boundary and ordered re-demarcation of the two states.
    • When the state of Andhra Pradesh was created in 1955, the villages were not surveyed by the state government either.

    Details of the villages

    • These villages, with a population of nearly 5,000, are located on a remote hilltop on the inter-state border and are inhabited by Kondh tribals.
    • The region, once a Maoist hotbed which still reports sporadic incidents of violence, is also rich in mineral resources like gold, platinum, manganese, bauxite, graphite and limestone.

    What is the judicial reaction?

    • In the early 1980s, Odisha filed a case in the Supreme Court demanding right and possession of jurisdiction over the 21 villages.
    • In 2006 the court ruled that disputes belonging to the state boundaries are not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
    • The matter can only be resolved by Parliament and passed a permanent injunction on the disputed area.

  • Bill coming on Delhi government and L-G functions

    The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) is all set to introduce legislation to amend a 1991 Act pertaining to the powers and functions of the Delhi government and the Lieutenant Governor (LG).

    What is the new bill?

    • The Bill is likely to clearly define the powers of the LG and the Delhi government on the lines of the Supreme Court judgment of February 2019.
    • It is likely to give more teeth to the LG’s office.

    Why need such a law?

    • The Delhi UT government is often at loggerheads with the Centre on administrative matters in the Capital.

    What made it to the news?

    • A Supreme Court Bench of Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan had, other than the question of services, given a unanimous verdict on the role of the two authorities.
    • In the February 14, 2019 verdict, the court upheld as “legal” the MHA’s 2015 notifications authorising the LG to exercise powers in relation to services.
    • It had directed the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) police not to take cognizance of offences against Central government officials.

    SC confirms HC findings

    • The apex court confirmed the Delhi High Court’s finding that the ACB’s jurisdiction is confined to Delhi officials and statutory bodies and does not extend to Central government officials.
    • Last year, the MHA notified the rules for the newly created UT of J&K, where it provided a solution in case of difference of opinion between the LG and a Minister.
    • It ruled that if no agreement could be reached even after a month, the decision of the Lieutenant Governor shall be deemed to have been accepted by the Council of Ministers.

    What are the key propositions?

    • According to changes proposed in the new Act, the LG could act in his discretion in any matter that is beyond the purview of the powers of the Assembly of Delhi.
    • This would be in matters related to the All India (Civil) Services and the ACB.

    Back2Basics: Special Status for New Delhi

    • Article 239AA of the Constitution of India granted Special Status to Delhi among Union Territories (UTs) in the year 1991 through 69th constitutional amendment.
    • It provided a Legislative Assembly and a Council of Ministers responsible to such Assembly with appropriate powers.
    • That’s when Delhi was named as National Capital Region (NCT) of Delhi.
    • As per this article – Public Order, Police & Land in NCT of Delhi fall within the domain and control of Central Government which shall have the power to make laws on these matters.
    • For remaining matters of State List or Concurrent List, in so far as any such matter is applicable to UTs, the Legislative Assembly shall have the power to make laws for NCT of Delhi.

  • What is Inner-Line Permit?

    Union Home Minister has said that Inner-Line Permit (ILP) had been the Centre’s biggest gift to Manipur since its statehood.

    Note the states where ILP is required.

    The Inner Line

    • A concept drawn by colonial rulers, the Inner Line separated the tribal-populated hill areas in the Northeast from the plains.
    • To enter and stay for any period in these areas, Indian citizens from other areas need an Inner Line Permit (ILP).
    • Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and Mizoram are protected by the Inner Line, and lately, Manipur was added (in December last year).
    • The concept originates from the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation Act (BEFR), 1873.

    Its’ Inception

    • The policy of exclusion first came about as a response to the reckless expansion of British entrepreneurs into new lands which threatened British political relations with the hill tribes.
    • The BEFR prohibits an outsider’s — “British subject or foreign citizen” — entry into the are beyond the Inner Line without a pass and his purchase of land there.
    • On the other hand, the Inner Line also protects the commercial interests of the British from the tribal communities.
    • After Independence, the Indian government replaced “British subjects” with “Citizen of India”.
    • Today, the main aim of the ILP system is to prevent settlement of other Indian nationals in the States where the ILP regime is prevalent, in order to protect the indigenous/tribal population.

  • Andhra Pradesh High Court and the CM Row

    The Supreme Court has stayed an Andhra Pradesh High Court order intending to embark on a judicial enquiry into whether there is a constitutional breakdown in the State machinery, requiring a declaration of President’s rule.

    A backfire from the AP High Court

    • Andhra Pradesh CM had earlier sparked controversy by writing to the CJI complaining about a Supreme Court judge for allegedly influencing posting of cases in the State High Court.
    • The alleged Judge is slated to be the next Chief Justice of India, and some judges of the AP High Court have opened sharp criticism over AP CM’s move.

    What did the Supreme Court say?

    • The apex court found the enquiry highly disturbing. Hence it decided to stay the order.
    • Solicitor General Tushar Mehta asked why the High Court “should go into whether there is a constitutional breakdown in the State”.
    • The Solicitor General of the state government argued that it was not up to the High Court to enquire and recommend President’s rule in a State.

    Citations for the President’s Rule in a State

    • President’s rule is the suspension of state government and imposition of direct central government rule in a state.
    • It is Article 356 that deals with the failure of constitutional machinery in a State.
    • This power to impose President’s rule exclusively vests in the Central Executive.
    • Under Article 356, this move can be taken- if the President, on receipt of the report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen…..
    • The power in this regard, like sending a report either to the President of India or to the Governor of the concerned State or to record a finding in that regard, cannot be exercised by the judiciary.

    How did the AP govt respond?

    • The AP govt said that the High Court’s observation violated the Basic Structure doctrine of the Constitution.
    • Under the constitutional framework, it is not for the courts to decide as to whether there is a constitutional breakdown in a State.
    • The said power has been specifically conferred upon a different constitutional authority – and rightly so.
    • It is needless to mention that the constitutional courts do not have any judicially discoverable and manageable standards to determine if there has been a constitutional breakdown,” the petition contended.

    Back2Basics:

    President’s Rule

    • President’s rule is the suspension of state government and imposition of direct central government rule in a state.

    How it is imposed?

    • President’s Rule implies the suspension of a state government and the imposition of direct rule of the Centre.
    • This is achieved through the invocation of Article 356 of the Constitution by the President on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers.
    • Under Article 356, this move can be taken “(1) If the President, on receipt of the report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution…”

    How long President’s Rule can last

    • A proclamation of President’s Rule can be revoked through a subsequent proclamation in case the leader of a party produces letters of support from a majority of members of the Assembly, and stakes his claim to form a government.
    • The revocation does not need the approval of Parliament.
    • Any proclamation under Article 356 —which stands for six months — has to be approved by both Houses in the Parliament session following it.
    • This six-month time-frame can be extended in phases, up to three years.

    The S.R. Bommai Case

    • R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) was a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, where the Court discussed at length provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and related issues.
    • The judgement attempted to curb blatant misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which allowed President’s rule to be imposed over state governments.
    • Article 356 (1) has been deliberately drafted in a narrow language by the Founding Fathers so that political parties in the Centre does not misuse it to subvert federalism, it had noted.
    • The expression used in the Article is ‘if the President is satisfied”, the court had observed.
    • In other words, the President has to be convinced of or should have sufficient proof of information with regard to or has to be free from doubt or uncertainty about the state of things indicating that the situation in question has arisen.
    • The court had stated that although the sufficiency or otherwise of the material cannot be questioned, the legitimacy of inference drawn from such material is “certainly open to judicial review”.

    What it directed?

    • The judgment had explained that in a multi-party political system, chances are high that the political parties in the Centre and the State concerned may not be the same.
    • Article 356 cannot be used for the purpose of political one-upmanship by the Centre.
    • Hence there is a need to confine the exercise of power under Article 356[1] strictly to the situation mentioned therein which is a condition precedent to the said exercise,” the court had said.

    Conditions for Prez Rule

    • Where after general elections to the assembly, no party secures a majority, that is, Hung Assembly.
    • Where the party having a majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry and the governor cannot find a coalition ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
    • Where a ministry resigns after its defeat in the assembly and no other party is willing or able to form a ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
    • Where a constitutional direction of the Central government is disregarded by the state government.
    • Internal subversion where, for example, a government is deliberately acting against the Constitution and the law or is fomenting a violent revolt.
    • Physical breakdown where the government willfully refuses to discharge its constitutional obligations endangering the security of the state.