State Emergency in India

State Emergency, often referred to as President’s Rule, is a provision under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution that allows the central government to take over the governance of a state when the constitutional machinery in the state has failed. 

This provision empowers the President to assume control of the state in certain situations, where the state government is unable to function according to the provisions laid out in the Constitution of India. Though the concept of a State Emergency is not clearly defined in the Constitution, it serves as a vital tool for maintaining order and ensuring the continuation of governance when a state’s administration faces a breakdown.

In this article, we will explore the provisions of Article 356 in detail, its constitutional framework, the grounds for its imposition, parliamentary approval processes, its duration, revocation, and consequences. Additionally, we will also examine the misuse and potential challenges associated with the application of President’s Rule, along with the legal precedents that have shaped its use over the years.

Constitutional Framework of State Emergency

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution is part of Part XVIII, which deals with emergencies in India. The provision under Article 356 is part of the larger framework that includes Article 355, Article 357, and Article 365. These articles work together to give the Union Government the power to intervene in the functioning of state governments under specific conditions, including the failure of constitutional machinery.

Key Constitutional Provisions Related to Article 356:

• Article 355: Imposes a duty on the Union to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance. It serves as the groundwork for the imposition of President’s Rule when the constitutional machinery in a state breaks down.
  
• Article 356: This is the core of the State Emergency provision, which allows the President to take over the state administration if the state government is unable to function in accordance with the Constitution.
  
• Article 357: Provides for the exercise of legislative powers under the proclamation issued under Article 356, allowing the President to take over the legislative powers of the state.
  
• Article 365: This article provides that if a state fails to comply with or give effect to any direction given by the Union, it may lead to the invocation of Article 356.

Grounds for Imposition of State Emergency

State Emergency can be proclaimed on two main grounds as per the provisions of Article 356 and Article 365:

Article 356: Failure of Constitutional Machinery

Article 356 empowers the President to impose President’s Rule if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen where the governance of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This can happen in cases where:

1. The state government is unable to function properly due to political instability, civil unrest, or administrative breakdown.
2. The state government fails to maintain law and order.
3. There is no functioning government due to a hung assembly, political chaos, or a lack of majority in the state legislature.

Article 365: Non-Compliance with Union Directives

In cases where a state fails to comply with or implement any directions given by the Union government under the Constitution, the President may invoke Article 365. This is an important safeguard to ensure that states do not act in defiance of constitutional mandates issued by the Union Government.

Procedure for Imposing State Emergency

The President can declare President’s Rule in a state under Article 356 either based on the Governor’s report or in some cases, even without such a report. The process begins when the President receives a recommendation from the Governor or other credible sources indicating that the state is unable to function constitutionally.

Parliamentary Approval

Once the proclamation is issued by the President, it must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months from the date of issuance. If the Lok Sabha (the lower house) is dissolved during this period, the proclamation continues until 30 days from the first sitting of the newly constituted Lok Sabha, provided the Rajya Sabha (upper house) has approved it.

This parliamentary oversight ensures that the imposition of State Emergency is not arbitrary and has legislative backing. The approval process also acts as a safeguard against misuse of this power.

Duration of State Emergency

Initially, the duration of President’s Rule was fixed for a period of 6 months, but with time, this provision has been subject to changes. Under the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978, the term was set to 6 months, renewable every six months, but not exceeding 3 years.

However, an important exception to this is made when the National Emergency is in operation in the country. If the National Emergency is declared, the President’s Rule can continue for a period beyond one year, by increments of 6 months, provided that the Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be held due to certain difficulties.

This provision ensures that President’s Rule does not extend indefinitely and requires the government to hold elections whenever possible to restore democratic governance at the state level.

Consequences of President’s Rule

The imposition of President’s Rule has wide-ranging consequences on the governance structure of a state. It leads to a significant alteration in the functioning of the state executive, legislature, and judiciary.

Effects on the State Executive

When President’s Rule is imposed, the state’s Council of Ministers, including the Chief Minister, is dismissed. The Governor assumes executive authority on behalf of the President. The Governor administers the state with the assistance of the Chief Secretary or advisors appointed by the President. This centralisation of power in the hands of the Governor leads to the suspension of the elected government and replaces it with a bureaucratic administration.

Effects on the State Legislature

The President has the power to suspend or dissolve the State Legislative Assembly, and this gives Parliament the authority to legislate on matters in the State List. During this time, Parliament can also pass the State Budget. The President can also issue ordinances for the state when Parliament is not in session, making the central government the main lawmaker for the state.

Effects on the State Judiciary

The High Court of the state retains its constitutional powers, and there is no provision for the President to assume control over it. The judiciary’s independence is maintained, and its status remains unaffected during President’s Rule.

Misuse and Criticisms of Article 356

While Article 356 serves as an important mechanism to ensure the continuation of governance, it has faced considerable criticism over the years for its potential for misuse. There have been instances where the central government has imposed President’s Rule for political or personal reasons, undermining the democratic process and interfering with the functioning of state governments.

Criticisms of President’s Rule

• Misuse for Political Gain: Article 356 has often been invoked by central governments to dismiss opposition-led state governments. This has led to allegations of political opportunism, where the central government uses its powers to destabilise state governments that are not aligned with the ruling party.
  
• Violation of Federalism: The imposition of President’s Rule has been seen as a violation of the principle of federalism, which is the foundation of India’s political structure. By centralising power at the national level, it undermines the autonomy of state governments.
  
• Lack of Clear Criteria: The Constitution does not provide clear criteria for when President’s Rule should be invoked. This ambiguity has led to arbitrary use, with central governments using the provision for reasons that may not be consistent with the constitutional framework.
  
• Suspension of Democratic Processes: The suspension of the state legislature and dismissal of the state executive is viewed as a setback to democracy. This central intervention temporarily halts the functioning of democratically elected institutions at the state level.

Judicial Oversight and Safeguards

While the President’s Rule was initially immune from judicial review, the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 restored judicial oversight over the proclamation of President’s Rule. The landmark S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) case clarified that the proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review. The court held that the President must base their satisfaction on relevant material, and the proclamation cannot be arbitrary or excessive.

The case also emphasised that a state government cannot be dismissed without a floor test, and the court has the power to restore the dismissed government if it finds the imposition of President’s Rule unconstitutional.

Conclusion

State Emergency, or President’s Rule under Article 356, is an essential provision in India’s Constitution to ensure the continuation of governance during times of constitutional breakdown. However, its potential for misuse has led to significant concerns about its impact on democratic processes and the principle of federalism. 

Despite the safeguards in place, including judicial review and parliamentary oversight, the imposition of President’s Rule must be done judiciously and with clear, objective criteria to prevent abuse.