This is very clear. After the issue of directions by the President under this new article 280A when he visualizes a financial emergency in India or any part thereof, what is the need for this clause (5)? The Governor is on the spot and he can and will, if he is a conscientious and diligent Governor, he is bound to report to the President from time to time as to how these directions are being implemented. What are we doing here by incorporating all shorts of jumble–I would not use stronger words–and absolutely unnecessary verbiage? We have adopted articles where we have provided for emergency powers, and if the Governor feels and is satisfied that the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution, he will report to the President, Why should we say ‘Any failure to comply with the directions given etc.?’ Who will judge? That is the crux of the matter referred to in clause (5). Who will judge will it be the President or Governor or some other authority? Make it clear and do not leave it vague. If the President is satisfied it is a failure, then make it clear that if the President is satisfied that it is a failure, then it means the State Government has failed. Otherwise say that the Governor of the State will report to the President about the failure or otherwise.
