Q. Consider the following statements regarding the use of Article 356 (President’s Rule) in Indian states:
1.It is considered proper to impose President’s Rule when a state assembly results in a hung house and no party is able to form a government.
2.It is considered improper to impose President’s Rule if the ruling party in the state has lost in the general elections to the Lok Sabha but still holds majority in the assembly.
3.Maladministration and financial mismanagement are constitutionally valid grounds for invoking Article 356.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer: A
Notes:
Explanation:
- A hung assembly with no party able or willing to form a government is a valid and proper ground for President’s Rule.
- Imposing President’s Rule merely because the ruling party lost Lok Sabha elections is considered an improper ground, especially if it still enjoys majority in the assembly (as happened in 1977 and 1980).
- Issues like maladministration, corruption, or financial stringency do not constitute valid constitutional grounds for President’s Rule. These are listed by the Supreme Court as improper
Source: Laxmikant (Polity)
