President’s Rule – Article 356 to the Indian Constitution
Indian Constitution is one the lengthiest Constitutions in the world. It begins with Preamble which contains its ideals, objectives and basic principles of the Constitution. Our constitution has adopted the best features of the most of the major constitutions of the world as per the need of the country.
The constitution makers also foresaw that there could be situations when it would be difficult to run governments as in ordinary times. To cope with such situations, certain features are being incorporated in the Constitution which are called emergency provisions which are very important to safeguard the Sovereignty, unity, integrity and security of the country and democratic political system of our country.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, defining this extraordinary provision to the Constituent Assembly on 3rd August, 1949 said, “ I think I can well begin be reminding the House that it has been agreed by the House, where we were considering the general principles of the Constitution, that the Constitution should provide some machinery for the breakdown of the Constitution…” and further said, “I think as a necessary consequence to the introduction of Article 277-A we must also give liberty to the President to act even when there is no report by the Governor and when the President has got certain facts within his knowledge on which he thinks, he ought to act in the fulfillment of his duty.”
There are three main provisions in the Indian Constitution which consists of three types of emergencies which are as under :
- The National Emergency which comes under Article 352.
- President’s Rule in a State comes under Article 356.
- Financial Emergency which comes under Article 360.
State Emergency comes under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution which allows the President of India to impose his rule in a particular state as the situation has risen in which the state government is suspended and Generally the Governor is appointed as Chief Executive of the state by Government of India.
Conditions for Imposition:
The President’s Rule can be imposed when the President is satisfied that the constitutional machinery in the state has failed. This may include situations where the state government is unable to function as per the Constitution, often due to reasons such as:
- Breakdown of law and order.
- Political instability.
- Inability of the state government to gain majority support in the legislative assembly.
- Failure to comply with directives from the central government.
As per provisions of Article 356, if the President is satisfied on receipt of a report from the Governor of State or otherwise that a situation has arisen in which the State Government cannot be carried on in accordance with provisions of the Constitution of India, the President may assume all the functions of State Government or any of the powers vested in or exercised by the Governor or any authority other than the State Legislature. He may declare that the powers of the State Legislature shall be exercised by or under such authority of Parliament.
Revocation: The President may revoke the imposition of President’s Rule if the conditions leading to its imposition are remedied.
Since the adoption of the Indian constitution in 1950, the Union Government has used Article 356 for about 134 times to dissolve various elected State Governments by imposing President's rule. It was used for the first time on 20 June 1951 in Punjab. Thereafter it has been used on many times in state governments from time to time. During the last about 75 years, few states in which Presidents’ rule was imposed for more than a year. Few of them are:
1. Jammu and Kashmir: 6 years, 264 days.
2. Punjab: 4 years, 259 days.
3. Puducherry: 3 years 96 days.
4. Madhya Pradesh: 2 years, 340 days.
5. Nagaland: 2 years, 250 days.
6. Kerala: 2 years, 177 days.
7. Manipur: 2 years, 157 days.
8. Jammu and Kashmir: 2 years, 143 days.
However, there are other states also where President’s Rule was imposed for short period like in West Bengal for 7 days and Karnataka for 7 days and many more.
As per Article 365 of the Constitution, whenever a State fails to comply with or to give effect to any directions from central government, it will be lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the government of state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
If President’s Rule is proclaimed at time when Lok Sabha has been dissolved or dissolution of Lok Sabha taken place during the period of two months without approving such proclamation, then the proclamation survives until 30 days from the first sitting of newly constituted Lok Sabha provided Rajya Sabha also approves it in the mean-time.
During the period of President’s Rule, the Legislative Assembly is either dismissed completely or suspended. There is no Council of ministers when it is imposed.
- Union Government directly rules over the state or the union territory.
- The President’s rule can only be imposed after it has been approved by both the houses which are Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
- The maximum duration of the emergency but it can be extended and needs to be approved by both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha every six months.
Judicial Review: The imposition of President's Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review by the courts. If the imposition is found to be unconstitutional, the courts can declare it invalid. The Supreme Court, in several cases, has reviewed the application of Article 356, emphasizing that it should not be used arbitrarily or for political reasons.
Notable Cases:
- S. R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994): This landmark case reaffirmed that the imposition of President's Rule is subject to judicial review. The Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines for its imposition and emphasized that it should not be misused for political purposes.
The Court addressed various important aspects:
1.
Judicial Review of
Presidential Proclamation: The Supreme
Court held that the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject
to judicial review. The Court ruled that the decision to impose President’s
Rule cannot be taken in an arbitrary or mechanical manner, and it must be based
on real and valid reasons. This ruling was significant because it marked a
departure from earlier decisions where the President's decision was considered
final.
2. Discretionary Power of the President: The Court stated that Article 356 does not confer unbridled discretion on the President. The President must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers (the executive). However, this advice could be challenged in court if it is found to be motivated by improper or political reasons.
3. Imposition of President's Rule: The Court also laid down that the President’s Rule could only be imposed if the central government was satisfied that the state government was unable to function according to the provisions of the Constitution. The failure of the constitutional machinery must be proven, and it cannot be based on political motivations.
4. Strengthening the Principle of Federalism : The judgment reinforced the federal nature of the Indian Union, where the states are not merely administrative units but enjoy certain powers. The central government should not use Article 356 arbitrarily to undermine the autonomy of the states.
5. Guidelines for Imposing President’s Rule: The Court laid down several guidelines for the imposition of President’s Rule:
o The proclamation under Article 356 must be based on an objective assessment and must not be used for political expediency.
o If the state government is dismissed, it must be based on credible evidence of failure of constitutional machinery.
o The judiciary has the right to scrutinize whether the imposition of President's Rule was justified.
6. State Government’s Accountability : The Court also emphasized that any dismissal of a state government must be justified and the state government must not be dismissed unless it is shown that the state government has failed to act in accordance with the Constitution.
- R. P. Singh vs. Union of India (1959): The Supreme Court held that the power to impose President's Rule cannot be exercised in a mechanical manner; it must be done after carefully considering the situation in the state.
The Supreme Court of India in this case upheld the validity of the imposition of President’s Rule in Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that:
1. Presidential Proclamation is Constitutional: The Court upheld the President’s decision to dissolve the Uttar Pradesh government and impose President’s Rule, stating that such a proclamation was within the President’s powers as long as the action was in line with the provisions of the Constitution.
2. Limited Scope for Judicial Review: The Court acknowledged that the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 was primarily an executive decision and that the judiciary could not interfere unless there was a clear and manifest violation of the Constitution. In other words, the Court took a more restrictive view on judicial review, as the Constitution provided significant discretionary powers to the President in this matter.
3. Role of the President: The Court also emphasized the discretionary powers vested in the President under Article 356, ruling that the President's action, once taken, could not be easily questioned. The Court held that Article 356 gave the President wide discretion to act if the President felt that the state machinery had failed.
Article 356 is a crucial provision in the Indian Constitution that allows the central government to take over the governance of a state when there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery. While it serves as an emergency mechanism to maintain constitutional order, its use has been controversial, with concerns over the potential or misuse for political reasons.
