Article 365 of Indian Constitution

Article 365 of the Constitution of India plays a pivotal role in the governance of the country, especially in the relationship between the Union and State Governments. Positioned within Part XIX of the Constitution under miscellaneous provisions, Article 365 provides the constitutional basis for the imposition of President’s rule when a State Government fails to comply with directions issued by the Union Government. Despite its importance, Article 365 is often overshadowed by Article 356, which deals with President’s rule. 

Placement and Purpose of Article 365

Article 365 is located in Part XIX of the Indian Constitution, which deals with temporary, transitional, and special provisions. Its primary purpose is to maintain the constitutional machinery in the States by ensuring that the States comply with directions from the Union Government. When a State Government fails to do so, Article 365 empowers the President of India to hold that the State’s constitutional machinery has broken down.

The exact wording of Article 365 states:

“Where any State has failed to comply with or give effect to any direction given in the exercise of the executive power of the Union under any provision of this Constitution, it shall be lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.”

This provision recognises the need for harmonious centre–state relations and provides a mechanism to resolve conflicts where a State Government refuses to follow constitutionally mandated directives from the Union.

Historical Context and Origins of Article 365 of Indian Constitution

The concept behind Article 365 traces back to Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which granted provincial governors power to issue proclamations if a provincial government was unable to function according to the Act’s provisions. The framers of the Indian Constitution incorporated a similar provision to maintain the federal balance, while preserving the authority of the Union Government.

India and Pakistan remain among the very few democracies that have such provisions enabling the Union or federal government to intervene directly in the functioning of State Governments under specified circumstances.

Centre–State Relations and Union Directions

The Constitution divides legislative and administrative powers between the Union and the States through three lists: the Union List, State List, and Concurrent List. While States have autonomy in matters under the State List, the Union retains primacy over the Union List, and shares powers on the Concurrent List.

The Union Government can issue directions to States under Articles 256 and 257 to ensure that Union laws and policies are properly implemented. These directions may pertain to matters of national importance such as:

• Construction and maintenance of roads, railways, and other transport infrastructure.
• Management of educational institutions for linguistic or religious minorities.
• Welfare schemes for Scheduled Tribes and other vulnerable groups.
• Situations where mutual delegation of executive powers occurs, for example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Union directives for lockdowns and health measures had to be followed by all States.

Failure by a State Government to comply with such directions can be construed as a violation triggering Article 365.

Discretionary Nature of Article 365 of Indian Constitution

One key aspect of Article 365 is that it is discretionary, not mandatory. The phrase “it shall be lawful for the President” means that the President is empowered but not bound to take action when a State Government fails to comply with Union directions. The President, on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers, must be satisfied that a breakdown in constitutional machinery has occurred.

Before invoking Article 365, the President should give due consideration to the facts and circumstances, and ideally provide the State Government a reasonable opportunity to respond or remedy the situation. This discretion aims to prevent arbitrary or politically motivated impositions of President’s rule.

Relationship with Article 365 of Indian Constitution

Article 365 and Article 356 operate in tandem. Article 365 identifies and declares the failure of a State Government to comply with Union directions, while Article 356 provides the legal mechanism to impose President’s rule in that State.

In other words, Article 365 acts as the factual predicate, and Article 356 is the operative provision that allows the President to assume control of the State’s administration when the constitutional machinery is deemed to have failed.

Thus, no proclamation under Article 356 can validly be made without establishing grounds under Article 365.

Procedure for Imposition of President’s Rule

The imposition of President’s rule under Articles 365 and 356 follows a defined procedure:

• Material Collection: The Union Government collects relevant information indicating that the State Government has failed to comply with its directions.
• Presidential Satisfaction: The President, acting on the Union Cabinet’s advice, must be convinced that the State Government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution.
• Proclamation: The President issues a formal proclamation of State Emergency under Article 356 citing the breakdown of constitutional machinery under Article 365.
• Parliamentary Approval: This proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months. If not approved, it ceases to operate.
• Duration: Initially, President’s rule can last for six months. It can be extended in six-month increments up to a maximum of three years, subject to parliamentary approval each time. The 44th Amendment Act (1978) introduced this limitation.

Consequences of President’s Rule

When President’s rule is imposed following Article 365, several consequences follow:

• The State’s elected government is suspended, and the Governor takes over the executive functions on behalf of the President.
• The State Legislative Assembly may be either dissolved or kept in suspended animation, halting legislative activity.
• No new policies or laws can be introduced during this period by the State.
• The judiciary continues to function, though under the overarching constitutional framework of the Union.
• The Union Government controls the State’s financial resources through the Governor.

While the general administration continues, the suspension of democratic governance and policymaking significantly impacts the State’s autonomy.

Judicial Safeguards and Landmark Judgements

The potential misuse of Articles 365 and 356 has prompted judicial scrutiny to ensure these provisions are not employed arbitrarily.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

This landmark Supreme Court case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India established critical safeguards:

• The majority of the State Council of Ministers must be tested on the floor of the State Assembly before dismissal.
• The Union Government must issue a warning to the State and allow a reasonable period to respond.
• Dissolution of the State Assembly should be the last resort.
• Article 356 can only be invoked if there is a genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery as contemplated in Article 365.
• Courts can review the material justifying imposition of President’s rule.

Other Cases

• In Rameshwar Oraon v. State of Bihar (1995), the Court held that States are bound to comply with Union directions.
• The Andhra Pradesh High Court’s suo motu intervention in 2020 was stayed by the Supreme Court, which declared it an overreach and a violation of the basic structure doctrine.

These judgements ensure that President’s rule is used only in true emergencies and not as a political tool.

Instances of Invocation

Several notable instances demonstrate the practical application of Article 365 and President’s rule:

• Punjab (1951): The first imposition following dismissal of the State Ministry.
• Manipur (2001): Allegations of horse-trading and political instability led to President’s rule.
• Karnataka (2007), Jammu & Kashmir (2008), Maharashtra (2014), Uttar Pradesh (2016): Political breakdowns, coalition failures, and loss of majority prompted President’s rule.

These examples highlight the political sensitivity and constitutional gravity of invoking Article 365.

Conclusion

Article 365 of the Indian Constitution is a crucial provision balancing the federal nature of the country with the need for constitutional uniformity. It empowers the Union Government to act when States refuse to comply with essential Union directives, ensuring the smooth functioning of the nation.

However, the discretionary nature of Article 365, coupled with judicial oversight and parliamentary approval, protects against misuse. The lessons from landmark judgements like S.R. Bommai reinforce that President’s rule is an extraordinary measure, to be used judiciously and sparingly.