翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ S. Sadanand
・ S. Sadasiva Padayachi
・ S. Sadasivam
・ S. salicifolia
・ S. Samar Hasnain
・ S. Sambhu Prasad
・ S. Samuel DiFalco
・ S. Sankaralingam
・ S. Sarath Babu
・ S. Sarath Kumar
・ S. sarda
・ S. Sathiamoorthy
・ S. Satthianadhan
・ S. Satyamurti
・ S. Schwab Company
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
・ S. R. Bose
・ S. R. Butler High School
・ S. R. Crockett
・ S. R. Crown Hall
・ S. R. D. Vaidyanathan
・ S. R. Ekkundi
・ S. R. Furtado
・ S. R. Hiremath
・ S. R. Janakiraman
・ S. R. Jeyadurai
・ S. R. Kanaganayagam
・ S. R. Kanthi
・ S. R. Munusamy
・ S. R. Nathan


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India : ウィキペディア英語版
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India

''S. R. Bommai v. Union of India'' (() 2 SCR 644 : AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994)3 SCC1) 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. This case had huge impact on Centre-State Relations. The misuse of Article 356, popularly known as "President's rule", to impose central authority on states, was stopped after this judgement.〔
==Background==
Article 356 deals with imposition of President's Rule over a State of India. When a state is under President's Rule, the elected state government (led by the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers) is suspended, and administration is conducted directly by the Governor of the state. The Governor is an appointee of the President and thus, effectively, a functionary of the Union Government (the central or federal government). Thus imposition of President's Rule negates the federal character of the Indian political system, where administration usually is shared between the Union and State governments. It also militates against the democratic doctrine of popular sovereignty, since an elected government is suspended. These reasons have made use of Article 356 controversial. Nevertheless, it was used repeatedly by central governments to suspend state governments (of opposite political parties) based on genuine reasons or trumped-up excuses.〔
Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India, referred to Article 356 as a dead letter of the Constitution. In the constituent assembly debate it was suggested that Article 356 is liable to be abused for political gains. Dr. Ambedkar replied, “I share the sentiments that such articles will never be called into operation and they would remain a dead letter. If at all they are brought into operation, I hope the President, who is endowed with these powers, will take proper precautions before actually suspending the administration of the provinces. I hope the first thing he will do would be to issue a mere warning to a province that has erred, that things were not happening in the way in which they were intended to happen in the Constitution. If that warning fails, the second thing for him to do will be to order an election allowing the people of the province to settle matters by themselves. It is only when these two remedies fail that he would resort to this article.”〔
But this was never the case and before the judgement in Bommai case, Article 356 has been repeatedly abused to dismiss the State Governments controlled by a political party opposed to ruling party at centre. Provision for suspension of elected governments has been used on more than 90 occasions and in most of the cases, it appeared to be of doubtful constitutional validity, as mentioned by B. P. Jeevan Reddy during one of his interviews in 1998.〔

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「S. R. Bommai v. Union of India」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.