Article 257A

Article 257A of the Constitution of India, now repealed, was a temporary provision that granted the Central Government the authority to deploy Union armed forces or other Union-controlled forces within a State to address serious law and order situations. Introduced during a period of significant constitutional centralisation, this Article became symbolic of the tension between the principles of federalism and national control. It was later omitted to restore the balance of power between the Centre and the States.

Introduction and Constitutional Background

Article 257A was inserted into the Constitution by the Forty-second Amendment Act, 1976, one of the most extensive amendments to the Indian Constitution. The amendment was passed during the period of the Emergency (1975–1977), when the Central Government, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, sought to strengthen its control over the States and the overall administrative framework of the country.
The Article was intended to empower the Union to intervene swiftly in cases of internal disturbance or breakdown of public order within a State. It complemented the Union’s duty under Article 355, which requires the Centre to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance, but it went further by giving the Central Government direct operational control over Union forces deployed in the States.

Key Provisions and Scope

Article 257A conferred wide-ranging powers on the Union Government. Its primary features included:

• Deployment Authority: The Central Government could send armed forces or other Union-controlled forces into any State if it considered that grave law and order problems existed there.
• Central Control: The deployed forces were to act under the control and direction of the Central Government, rather than that of the State Government or its officers.
• Legislative Empowerment: Parliament was authorised to make laws defining the powers, duties, privileges, and liabilities of such forces during their deployment in the States.
• State Role Restricted: State Governments had no supervisory authority over the deployed forces except to the extent allowed by the Central Government.

This arrangement effectively meant that the Union could intervene directly in maintaining internal security without the formal proclamation of an emergency or the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356.

Control and Supervision of Forces

The unique aspect of Article 257A lay in its administrative structure. The forces deployed under it operated entirely under the Union’s direction. The State’s police and civil authorities were excluded from command, unless the Central Government specifically authorised limited coordination.
This provision was thus viewed as a centralising mechanism that diluted the federal principle of shared responsibility in maintaining public order. In the Indian federal system, “public order” and “police” fall under the State List in the Seventh Schedule, meaning that such matters are ordinarily under the jurisdiction of State Governments. Article 257A temporarily disrupted this constitutional balance.

Omission by the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978

Article 257A was omitted by the Forty-fourth Amendment Act, 1978, with effect from 20 June 1979. The Forty-fourth Amendment was enacted after the end of the Emergency to reverse several provisions of the Forty-second Amendment that were considered inconsistent with democratic and federal principles.
The omission of Article 257A was justified on the grounds that it had given excessive power to the Centre to intervene in State matters, thereby undermining the constitutional autonomy of the States. The framers of the Forty-fourth Amendment aimed to restore the equilibrium of India’s federal structure by ensuring that the deployment of Union forces within a State would only occur under the general framework of Articles 355 and 356.

Impact on Centre-State Relations

The inclusion and subsequent repeal of Article 257A had significant implications for Centre-State relations.

• Centralisation During the Emergency: Its introduction reflected an era of heightened central control and limited State autonomy. It allowed the Centre to act unilaterally in internal security matters.
• Restoration of Federal Balance: Its removal marked a conscious shift towards cooperative federalism and the reassertion of State powers in maintaining public order.
• Dependence on Other Articles: After its omission, the Centre’s authority to deploy Union forces in a State continues under the constitutional duty imposed by Article 355 and, in extreme situations, through Article 356 (President’s Rule).

Related Constitutional Provisions

• Article 355: Obligates the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that State Governments function in accordance with the Constitution.
• Article 356: Authorises the President to assume control of a State’s administration in case of failure of its constitutional machinery.
• Article 257: Regulates the control of the Union over States in certain administrative cases, ensuring that State actions do not impede Union authority.

These provisions collectively establish a graded mechanism for Union intervention — from issuing directions under Article 257 to imposing President’s Rule under Article 356.

Legal and Judicial Context

Article 257A was never invoked in any reported case before its repeal, and hence, there are no direct judicial pronouncements interpreting it. However, its implications were indirectly reflected in later constitutional discourse surrounding Articles 355 and 356.
The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case became a landmark in defining the limits of Central intervention. The Supreme Court, while interpreting Articles 355 and 356, upheld the principle that the Union cannot act arbitrarily or use emergency provisions as tools of political manipulation. The reasoning applied in Bommai indirectly affirms why Article 257A’s omission strengthened democratic federalism.

Debate and Criticism

Article 257A faced strong criticism from constitutional experts, political scientists, and federalists for several reasons:

• Erosion of State Autonomy: It undermined the constitutional distribution of powers by transferring control of internal security from States to the Centre.
• Potential for Political Misuse: The provision could be exploited by the Central Government to suppress political opposition in States.
• Emergency Context: Introduced during the Emergency, it was perceived as part of a broader attempt to weaken democratic checks and balances.
• Absence of Judicial Safeguards: There were no explicit procedural safeguards against arbitrary deployment of Union forces.

The post-Emergency government viewed the provision as inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution and therefore repealed it to reaffirm the federal balance envisioned by the framers.

Contemporary Relevance and Current Framework

Although Article 257A no longer exists, the practical need for Union forces to assist States continues to arise. Today, such deployments occur under Article 355 and relevant statutory frameworks such as the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) and other security-related laws. These allow the Union to provide assistance to States upon request or in exceptional circumstances, but always within a legally defined and accountable framework.
The Centre now deploys armed forces or paramilitary units in States primarily for:

• Managing large-scale law and order disturbances;
• Combating terrorism, insurgency, or communal violence;
• Responding to natural disasters or emergencies;
• Ensuring free and fair elections through the deployment of central paramilitary forces.