President’s Rule and Article 356 of Indian Constitution

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, often referred to as the provision for President’s Rule, is one of the most crucial and powerful constitutional provisions that enable the Union government to take over the governance of a state. The provision, also known as State Emergency or Constitutional Emergency, comes into play when the state machinery fails, and the central government needs to step in to restore constitutional order and maintain stability.

While it plays an essential role in ensuring that the constitutional fabric of the country remains intact, its implementation has been subject to intense scrutiny, particularly because of its potential misuse.

In this article, we will delve into the various aspects of Article 356, its grounds for imposition, its impact, judicial interpretations, and the criticisms it faces.

Constitutional Basis of Article 356

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which falls under Part XVIII (Emergency Provisions), grants the President of India the power to impose President’s Rule in a state if the government of the state is unable to function according to the provisions of the Constitution. It essentially allows the central government to assume control over the state in the event of a breakdown in governance. The primary intent behind this provision is to maintain constitutional governance and ensure that no state government operates in violation of the Constitution.

The provision also refers to the concept of Federalism as it defines the Centre’s role in intervening during a state crisis. Alongside Article 356, Article 355 and Article 357 are closely related. Article 355 mandates the Union to safeguard states from external aggression and internal disturbances, while Article 357 empowers the President to legislate for a state under certain conditions.

Grounds for Imposition of President’s Rule

The President can declare a state of emergency under Article 356 on the basis of two broad grounds:

Breakdown of Constitutional Machinery

The first ground for invoking President’s Rule is when the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried out in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution. This could be due to political instability, such as the collapse of the state government or inability of the state legislature to elect a leader or pass the budget.

The breakdown of constitutional machinery is often identified through circumstances such as:

• The inability of the state to form a government due to a hung assembly.
• The resignation or absence of the Chief Minister.
• Failure of the Chief Minister to prove a majority in the state legislative assembly.
• A breakdown in law and order, including severe internal disturbances or unrest.

Failure to Comply with Union Directions

The second ground for invoking President’s Rule arises when a state government fails to comply with or implement the directions issued by the Union government. This failure, under Article 365, suggests that the state’s governance is ineffective and cannot operate in compliance with the Constitution.

This can happen in instances such as when a state refuses to implement central laws, directives, or even fail to conduct elections as required by the Constitution.

Process of Imposition of President’s Rule

Once the President is satisfied about the breakdown of governance, a proclamation is made. This proclamation can be based on the Governor’s report or other reliable sources, including intelligence reports or the President’s independent assessment.

Approval from Parliament

The imposition of President’s Rule is not automatic and must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months. If the proclamation is not approved during this period, it ceases to operate. If the Lok Sabha is dissolved during this time, the proclamation remains valid for a further 30 days after the first session of the newly constituted Lok Sabha, provided the Rajya Sabha has already approved it.

Duration and Extension of President’s Rule

• Initial Duration: Once imposed, President’s Rule is initially valid for six months.
• Extensions: It can be extended by six months at a time but cannot exceed three years. However, the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a provision allowing for an extension beyond one year, under two specific conditions:
  • A National Emergency must be in effect throughout India or any part of it.
  • The Election Commission of India certifies that state elections cannot be conducted due to extraordinary circumstances.

During this time, the Union Government assumes the executive authority of the state, and the Governor, under the President’s direction, becomes the de facto head of the state.

Impact of President’s Rule

When President’s Rule is imposed, the central government assumes control over the state’s governance. This has far-reaching consequences, including:

1. Centralisation of Power: The powers of the state legislature are transferred to Parliament, and the Governor, on behalf of the President, exercises the executive authority of the state.
2. Dissolution of State Government: The elected state government, including the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers, is dismissed, and the state legislative assembly may be suspended or dissolved.
3. Legislative Powers: Parliament takes over the legislative functions of the state, which includes the power to enact laws, pass the state’s budget, and issue ordinances for the state.
4. State Administration: The Chief Secretary and other officials appointed by the central government oversee the day-to-day administration of the state.

Despite these broad powers, the imposition of President’s Rule does not affect the functioning of the High Court. The judiciary remains an independent body even under such circumstances.

Judicial Oversight and Constitutional Safeguards

Over the years, the imposition of President’s Rule has been subject to rigorous judicial scrutiny. The Supreme Court of India has played a key role in defining the limits and scope of Article 356, ensuring that its misuse for political reasons is prevented.

The landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case was pivotal in this regard. In this case, the Court ruled that President’s Rule is subject to judicial review. The Court held that while the President’s subjective satisfaction regarding the failure of the state government cannot be questioned, the material on which the President bases the decision can be examined for its relevance and sufficiency.

The Court’s intervention was significant because it ensured that President’s Rule could not be arbitrarily imposed based on vague or politically motivated reasons. It also mandated that the state legislature could not be dissolved, only suspended, until parliamentary approval is obtained. Furthermore, Parliament must approve the proclamation within two months, failing which the state government is revived.

Key Supreme Court Judgements

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

The Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of President’s Rule could be reviewed by courts if the decision is arbitrary or based on extraneous considerations.

The ruling also stipulated that the state legislature can only be suspended, not dissolved, and that parliamentary approval is required to continue the President’s Rule.

Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)

The Court reinforced the Bommai ruling, stating that President’s Rule should be imposed only after considering objective criteria and not just the subjective opinion of the Union government.

It emphasised that the floor test (to determine the majority) should be the primary method to resolve disputes regarding the formation of governments.

Criticisms of President’s Rule

Despite its constitutional importance, President’s Rule has often been criticised for its potential misuse. Some of the key criticisms are:

1. Misuse for Political Purposes:  Historically, the President’s Rule has been imposed during times of political instability, often to dismiss opposition-led governments. The rule was used extensively during Indira Gandhi’s tenure, where it was invoked 39 times, primarily in opposition-ruled states. Many critics argue that this undermines the democratic process and can be used as a tool for political consolidation at the Centre.
2. Centralisation of Power:  The imposition of President’s Rule centralises power in the hands of the central government, weakening the federal structure of the Constitution. This undermines the autonomy of the states and reduces the ability of elected state governments to govern according to the needs and desires of the people.
3. Suspension of Democratic Processes: The dissolution of elected state governments and legislative assemblies disrupts the normal democratic process, leading to a situation where the people’s representatives are sidelined and the central government effectively rules the state.
4. Political Instability:  Critics argue that the frequent imposition of President’s Rule leads to political instability and lack of continuity in governance. It is seen as a failure of the political system to resolve internal conflicts or power struggles at the state level.

Conclusion

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, while intended as a safeguard against the breakdown of constitutional machinery in states, has seen frequent use over the years, leading to concerns about its misuse. However, the Supreme Court’s judicial oversight has helped ensure that its invocation is not arbitrary. 

The provisions laid out in Article 356 and the related Articles 355, 357, and 365 continue to be a crucial part of India’s political and constitutional structure. The balance between the need for central intervention and the preservation of state autonomy remains a delicate issue, and the future use of Article 356 will undoubtedly continue to be shaped by both judicial interpretations and political realities.