Author: Riddhi Vichare;
SVKM’s NMIMS K.P. Mehta School of Law.
To the Point.
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to impose President’s Rule in a state if he is satisfied that the governance in the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Though designed as a constitutional safeguard to address breakdowns in state governance, Article 356 has often been criticized for being misused as a political weapon by the Union Government. This article explores the legal framework of Article 356, judicial checks through landmark judgements, and the constitutional limits on its invocation. The focus is to understand the balance between central authority and state autonomy and how judicial interpretation has evolved to address concerns of federalism and democracy.
Abstract.
Article 356 stands at the intersection of constitutional necessity and political misuse. Meant to preserve constitutional governance in states, it has been frequently used for partisan ends, raising questions about the sanctity of Indian Federalism. Judicial interventions, especially in the S.R. Bommai case, have attempted to restore balance by laying down guidelines and limiting arbitrary action. This article delves into the legal, historical, and judicia dimensions of Article 356, examining how it has evolved and how legal safeguards can prevent its further abuse. It also reflects on the role of the judiciary in preserving the federal structure and maintaining the democratic ethos.
The necessity of Article 356 in maintaining law and order during extreme situations such as riots, natural calamities, or legislative paralysis cannot be ignored. However, this power must be used judiciously. The courts have played a critical role in transforming Article 356 from an instrument of executive overreach to one that is governed by legal norms and democratic accountability. The abstract principle of cooperative federalism must guide the future application of this provision.
Use of Legal Jargon.
The enforcement of President’s Rule under Article 356 is formally termed as a Proclamation of Emergency in a State, commonly known as a State Emergency. It is invoked when there is a failure of constitutional machinery in a state. The satisfaction of the President, although discretionary, is subject to judicial review as established in constitutional jurisprudence. The misuse of Article 356 raises issues relating to federalism, democratic decentralization, and separation of powers. Key legal doctrines associated with Article 356 include malafide intent, misuse of power under the guise of legality (colorable exercise of power), adherence to the rule of law, and the principle of constitutional morality. The provision is a part of the wider emergency powers framework but holds unique implications due to its federal consequences.
The Proof.
The use of Article 356 has not been rare. Since independence, it has been invoked over 100 times. Initially, it was used sparingly, but in the 1970s and 1980s, political motives often drove its application. States governed by opposition parties were frequently dismissed on vague or politically driven grounds.
For instance, in 1977, after the Emergency was lifted, the newly formed Janata government dismissed nine Congress-led state governments, citing loss of peoples’ mandate. Likewise, in 1980, following her return to power, Indira Gandhi dismissed nine state governments led by the Janata Party, demonstrating how Article 356 could be exploited for political advantage. This trend indicated that Article 356 could become a tool to centralize political power rather than a means of upholding constitutional order.
The most famous misuse occurred in 1992 when the Babri Masjid was demolished. The central government dismissed four BJP-ruled states citing a constitutional breakdown. This controversial use of Article 356 prompted deeper judicial scrutiny. The events were not isolated; they were symptomatic of a systematic weakness in how executive discretion was excited under this provision.
Even recent years have witnessed political controversy surrounding the use of Presidents’ Rule. The 2016 imposition in Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh sparked debates about Governors’ reports and the timing of central intervention. Both cases reached the judiciary, which acted as a key restraining force against arbitrary dismissals.
Case Laws.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994).
This seminal judgment affirmed that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 is not beyond scrutiny and can be examined through judicial review. The Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines, including the requirement for floor tests to prove legislative majority, and declared that arbitrary dismissal of state governments is unconstitutional. The Court underscored that democracy forms a core element of the Constitution’s basic structure and cannot be undermined by arbitrary executive action.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)
The Bihar assembly was dissolved in 2005 even before it could meet. The Supreme Court declared the action unconstitutional and reaffirmed that preventive actions based on political apprehensions are not a valid ground for invoking Article 356. The judgement stressed the role of democratic processes in determining legislative competence and the need to avoid preemptive central interventions.
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977)
The Court upheld the dismissal of state governments by the Janata Party, stating that political expediency was not subject to judicial review at the time. However, this judgement was later effectively overruled by S.R. Bommai case. The case is important to understand the historical judicial stance before the constitutional evolution post-1990s.
U.N. Rao v. Indira Gandhi (1971)
The Supreme Court Observed that Presidents’ Rule should only be imposed as a last resort and that democratic alternatives, such as floor tests, must be prioritized. The ruling contributed to the growing recognition that Article 356 must not be a routine governance tool.
Conclusion.
Article 356, though constitutionally valid, is one of the most controversial provisions in the Indian Constitution. Its misuse undermines the federal fabric and erodes democratic values. Judicial interventions, particularly post-S.R. Bommai, have tried to limit its misuse, but political motives still find a way to influence its application. It is essential that constitutional functionaries exercise this power with restraint, transparency, and strict adherence to constitutional principles.
The role of Governors and their reports used as a basis for invoking Article 356 must be objective, well-reasoned, and not politically influenced. The emergence of coalition politics and regional parties has made the federal fabric more pluralistic, thus necessitating stricter adherence to constitutional morality. Judicial vigilance, along with active civil society discourse, is crucial in preserving the balance between state autonomy and national unity.
FAQS
Q1. What is Article 356 of the Indian Constitution?
Article 356 empowers the President to impose President’s Rule in a state if the state government cannot function in accordance with constitutional provisions.
Q2. Is the President’s decision under Article 356 final?
No. The Supreme Court, in the landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case, ruled that decisions made under Article 356 are open to judicial scrutiny.
Q3. How long can President’s Rule be imposed?
It is initially imposed for a period of six months and may be extended, with Parliament’s approval, in six-month intervals for a maximum duration of three years
Q4. Can a dismissed government challenge the proclamation?
Yes. If the dismissal is found to be mala fide or based on irrelevant grounds, courts can strike down the proclamation.
Q5. How can misuse of Article 356 be prevented?
By enforcing judicial guidelines, ensuring transparency, requiring floor tests, and using the power as a last resort.
Q6. Has Article 356 ever been misused?
Yes, multiple times, especially during political regime changes at the Centre. Historical misuse includes actions in 1977, 1980, and 1992.
Q7. What function does the Governor serve under Article 356?
The Governor plays a pivotal role by submitting a report to the President indicating a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state. This report forms the basis for recommending the imposition of President’s Rule and must be objective, impartial, and supported by factual circumstances.
Q8. Is it possible to repeal Article 356 from the Constitution?
While Article 356 can technically be removed through a constitutional amendment, such a move would significantly limit the Centre’s ability to act during genuine constitutional crises in states. Therefore, most experts advocate for reforming its application rather than eliminating the provision entirely.
Q9. How does Article 356 relate to federalism?
Article 356 has direct implications on Centre-State relations. Its misuse can disturb the federal balance, making judicial oversight and political accountability essential.
