President’s Rule, under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, is a crucial yet contentious provision in India’s federal system. It empowers the Centre to take direct control of a state when its constitutional machinery fails or governance collapses, often due to political instability, a hung assembly, or a breakdown of law and order.
Originally intended as an emergency provision, its frequent invocation—especially for political gains—has drawn criticism and judicial scrutiny. Recent discussions surrounding Manipur’s political crisis, following the resignation of N. Biren Singh as Chief Minister, have once again brought Article 356 into the spotlight.
What is Article 356 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 356 empowers the President to impose central rule in a state on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers if he is satisfied that the state’s governance cannot be carried out in accordance with constitutional provisions. Once invoked, all functions of the state government are transferred to the Centre, and the powers of the state legislature are exercised by Parliament for the duration of its enforcement.
Exception: The only exception is the functioning of High Courts, which remains unaffected.
Constitutional basis for President’s Rule
Articles 355 to 357 in Part XVIII, along with Article 365 in Part XIX of the Indian Constitution, pertain to the President’s Rule.
| Article 355 | It mandates the Union to protect states from external aggression and internal disturbances, ensuring that governance aligns with constitutional principles |
| Article 356 | Allows the President to take over the governance of a state upon satisfaction that its constitutional machinery has broken down. |
| Article 357 | Article 357 of the Constitution of India allows Parliament to exercise the legislative powers of a state when a Proclamation is issued under Article 356 |
| Article 365 | States that if a state government fails to comply with directions from the Union, the President may assume direct control over the state. |
What is the procedure and duration for the imposition of President’s Rule in India under Article 356?
1. Governor’s Report: The process begins if the President, on receiving a report from the Governor, is “satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution”.
2. Presidential Satisfaction: The President, upon being convinced of the crisis, issues a proclamation imposing President’s Rule.
3. Parliamentary Approval: Within two months, both Houses of Parliament must approve the proclamation by a simple majority.
4. Duration: Initially, the rule lasts for six months, extendable up to three years with parliamentary approval every six months.
5. Extension Beyond One Year: According to the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, President’s rule can only be extended over a year every 6 months under the following conditions:
a. The Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be conducted in the state concerned.
b. There is already a national emergency throughout India or in the whole or any part of the state.
In practice, President’s Rule has been imposed in a state under any of the following circumstances:
|
| Read more– Difference between National Emergency and President’s rule |
What are the consequences of the President’s Rule?
1. Governor’s Role: The Governor assumes executive control and runs the administration on behalf of the President.
2. Legislative Assembly: The Assembly is either dissolved or kept in suspended animation.
3. Parliament’s Role: The Union Parliament takes over the legislative functions of the state.
4. Impact on Governance: No new state laws can be enacted, and administration is run by bureaucrats.
5. Fresh Elections: The Election Commission must conduct elections within six months unless an extension is granted.
Additionally, pending public and state welfare policies often remain stalled during the enforcement of President’s Rule.
What is the history of President’s Rule in India?
1. Since 1950, President’s Rule has been imposed 134 times across 29 states and UTs.
2. Manipur and Uttar Pradesh have seen the most frequent impositions, 10 times each.
Note– However, these are not the regions that have spent the longest time under central control.
States/UTs with the longest duration under President’s Rule:
1. Jammu & Kashmir – Over 12 years (4,668 days).
2. Punjab – Over 10 years (3,878 days).
- Both faced prolonged militant and separatist activity leading to instability.
3. Puducherry – Over 7 years (2,739 days).
- Frequent government collapses due to infighting and defections.
What is the Supreme Court landmark judgment on President’s Rule?
The landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case imposed strict judicial scrutiny on Article 356:
1. Judicial review: The court ruled that the President’s decision to impose President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.
2. Material consideration: The court can examine whether there was relevant material justifying the imposition.
3. Limited scope: The ruling emphasized that states are not merely appendages of the Centre, reinforcing federalism.
4. Revival of dismissed government: If Parliament does not approve the proclamation within two months, the dismissed state government is reinstated.
What are the criticisms of President’s Rule and the key recommendations for reform?
Despite being a constitutional safeguard, Article 356 has been criticized for its misuse, particularly for political motives:
1. Frequent usage: It has been invoked over 100 times, with 39 cases under Indira Gandhi alone.
2. Political manipulation: Often used to dismiss opposition-led state governments.
3. Centralization of power: Undermines the federal structure by placing states under direct central control.
4. Suspension of democracy: Disrupts elected governance and denies citizens a functional state government.
5. Dubious grounds: Governments have been dismissed for reasons like internal party conflicts rather than genuine governance failures.
key Recommendations for reform
Several commissions have suggested ways to prevent the misuse of Article 356:
1. Sarkaria Commission: Advocated for using Article 356 as a last resort and recommended prior warning before its imposition.
2. Punchhi Commission: Proposed a localized approach where only specific areas of a state, rather than the entire state, could be brought under central rule.
What is the the way Forward?
1. Stringent guidelines: The Centre should adhere strictly to the guidelines set by the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai’s case.
2. Enhancing federalism: Strengthen institutional mechanisms to resolve state crises without resorting to Article 356.
3. Judicial oversight: Fast-track judicial review of proclamations to prevent politically motivated misuse.
4. Alternative measures: Encourage dialogue, financial assistance, or Governor’s intervention before invoking Article 356.
5. Limited scope: Explore decentralized emergency provisions instead of imposing blanket President’s Rule over an entire state.
Conclusion
President’s Rule under Article 356 remains a vital constitutional provision for maintaining governance when a state government fails. However, its history is marred by instances of political misuse. While judicial interventions, particularly the S.R. Bommai case, have curtailed arbitrary impositions, further safeguards are necessary to protect India’s federal structure. Moving forward, balancing the need for constitutional stability with federal autonomy is crucial for ensuring a robust and democratic India.
| Read more– The Indian Express UPSC Syllabus- GS 2– Separation of powers between various organs dispute redressal mechanisms and institutions. |
Discover more from Free UPSC IAS Preparation Syllabus and Materials For Aspirants
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
