Author :SAMRIDHI SINGH , a student of SHREE RAMSWAROOP MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY
To the Point
President’s Rule, enshrined under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, empowers the Union government to take control of a state’s administration when there is a failure of constitutional machinery. Introduced as a constitutional safeguard, this provision has frequently been criticized for being misused by the central government for political gains. This article delves into the origin, application, judicial interpretation, and political misuse of Article 356, with landmark case laws and recommendations for reform.
Use of Legal Jargon
President’s Rule: Rule imposed under Article 356 when a state fails to function according to constitutional provisions.
Constitutional Machinery Failure: A situation where the state government cannot carry out constitutional governance
Proclamation: A formal announcement by the President based on the Governor’s report or other sources.
Judicial Review: The power of the judiciary to review the legality of President’s Rule.
Colourable Exercise of Power: Misuse of constitutional powers for ulterior political motives.
The Proof
Article 356 allows the President to assume the functions of the state government when the Governor reports a breakdown of constitutional machinery.
From 1950 to 1994, more than 100 instances of President’s Rule were imposed, often not for genuine breakdowns but for political convenience.
42nd and 44th Constitutional Amendments influenced the scope and duration of President’s Rule.
The S.R. Bommai judgment (1994) was a landmark ruling that curtailed arbitrary use of Article 356.
Abstract
The imposition of President’s Rule was intended as an emergency provision to preserve constitutional governance in states. However, political history suggests that Article 356 has often been abused to unseat democratically elected governments. This article critically analyses its origin, evolution, landmark cases, and political misuse, emphasizing the need for judicial checks and reforms to prevent central overreach and uphold federalism in India.
Case Laws
1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review and cannot be arbitrary.
Significance: Laid down clear guidelines for imposing Article 356 and reinforced federalism.
2. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)
Facts: Governor of Bihar recommended dissolution of Assembly before it was convened.
Judgment: SC held the dissolution unconstitutional, criticizing Governor’s action as mala fide.
Significance: Reaffirmed that the Governor’s role is not above scrutiny and that Article 356 cannot be invoked prematurely.
3. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)
Facts: After the 1977 Lok Sabha elections, the Janata Party government dismissed Congress-run state governments.
Judgment: Though the Court upheld the action, it set a precedent for potential misuse of Article 356 for political vendetta.
Significance: Demonstrated the limited scope of judicial intervention at the time.
4. Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974)
Facts: Pertained to the discretionary powers of Governors and the President.
Judgment: Held that President and Governors must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Significance: Limited the misuse of executive discretion, indirectly impacting Article 356 application.
Detailed Discussion
Historical Context and Constitutional Foundation
Article 356 is based on Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. It empowers the President to assume the functions of a state if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Procedure for Imposing President’s Rule
- Report by Governor stating failure of constitutional machinery.
- Satisfaction of the President based on the report or other information.
- Proclamation made under Article 356.
- Must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months.
- Can continue for 6 months at a time but not beyond 3 years (with some exceptions).
Political Misuse: Evidence and Analysis
1980s: Indira Gandhi’s tenure saw its excessive use against non-Congress state governments.
1977-1980: Janata Party dismissed nine Congress state governments.
Post-2000: Though less frequent, examples like Arunachal Pradesh (2016) and Uttarakhand (2016) demonstrate that misuse persists.
Role of the Governor: A Controversial Gatekeeper
Governors are often accused of being agents of the Centre, especially in recommending President’s Rule. The Supreme Court in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016) emphasized that the Governor’s discretion is not absolute.
Judicial Safeguards and the Bommai Doctrine
The S.R. Bommai judgment was a landmark. Key principles laid down:
The President’s satisfaction is not immune to judicial review.
Floor test in the Assembly is the only valid method to determine majority.
Secularism is part of the basic structure; anti-secular acts by state governments can invite President’s Rule.
44th Amendment (1978): Restored balance by ensuring that President’s Rule cannot be imposed for more than 6 months without fresh approval.
Federalism and Democratic Ethos
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had warned:
“It is an emergency power, and like all emergency powers, it is liable to be abused.”
Conclusion
While Article 356 is essential to deal with genuine constitutional crises in states, its frequent misuse has diluted its credibility and posed threats to the democratic and federal fabric of the Indian Constitution. Judicial pronouncements have helped, but political morality, constitutionalism, and accountability must guide its application. Strengthening the independence of the Governor, regular judicial scrutiny, and establishing objective parameters for its invocation are necessary to prevent arbitrary central overreach.
FAQs
Q. Who recommends President’s Rule?
The Governor of the state generally sends a report to the President recommending the imposition of President’s Rule.
Q. How long can President’s Rule last?
Initially imposed for 6 months, it can be extended up to a maximum of 3 years, with Parliament’s approval every 6 months.
Q4. What is the S.R. Bommai case about?
It was a landmark 1994 Supreme Court case that limited the arbitrary use of Article 356 and established that floor test is the correct method to assess majority in a state assembly.
Q. Can President’s Rule be challenged in court?
Yes, the Supreme Court and High Courts can review the imposition of President’s Rule under judicial review if it’s found to be mala fide.
Q. Has Article 356 been misused?
Yes, numerous times, especially in the 1970s and 80s, President’s Rule was imposed not due to breakdown of governance, but to topple state governments from opposition parties.
Q. What reforms are suggested for Article 356?
- Objective criteria for its invocation
- Floor test must be mandatory before imposition
- Independent selection of Governors
- Judicial review to be more prompt and effective
Q. What is the role of Parliament in President’s Rule?
Both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha must approve the proclamation within two months, and then every six months for continuation.
Q. Can the Governor’s recommendation be questioned?
Yes, courts can review the Governor’s report, especially if the actions are politically motivated or based on unverified claims.
Q. Does President’s Rule affect elections in the state?
Yes, when the state assembly is dissolved, fresh elections are to be conducted by the Election Commission within a stipulated time.
