Font size:
Print
President’s Rule in India under Article 356
Learn about President’s Rule in India under Article 356 of the Constitution. This blog explains its provisions, grounds for imposition, historical misuse, judicial safeguards like the S.R. Bommai case, and recent applications in Manipur, J&K, Punjab, and Maharashtra. Essential for UPSC aspirants studying polity, governance, and federalism.
Context:
During the recent Monsoon Session of Parliament, President’s Rule in Manipur was extended for another six months.
What is the President’s Rule?
The President’s Rule under Article 356 empowers the Centre to take direct control of a state through the President if its constitutional machinery fails. It is also known as ‘Constitutional Emergency’ or ‘State Emergency’. This provision was based on the Government of India Act, 1935.
What was the debate about President’s Rule in the Constituent Assembly?
The debate on President’s Rule in the Constituent Assembly revolved around balancing the need for a constitutional safeguard against state government failure with fears of potential misuse and erosion of federalism.
- Supporters of President’s Rule:
- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Defended Article 356 as a necessary safeguard for constitutional order. He also emphasised it would remain a “dead letter,” used only in exceptional situations.
- Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel: Viewed it as essential for maintaining national unity and strong central control.
- Opposers or Skeptics:
- K.T. Shah: Warned about vague definition of “failure of constitutional machinery.” He feared political misuse and centralisation.
- Rajkumari Amrit Kaur: Highlighted risks to democracy and federalism from potential misuse.
- Acharya Kripalani: Called for safeguards, judicial review, and Parliamentary oversight to prevent abuse.
What Constitutional Provisions were adopted?
- Article 355: Directs the Union Government to protect states from internal disturbances and ensure constitutional governance.
- Article 365: Obligates states to comply with Union laws and directions; failure can lead to President’s Rule.
- Article 356: Empowers the President to impose President’s Rule if the state’s constitutional machinery fails.
What are the grounds for imposing President’s Rule?
- Failure of constitutional machinery in the state
-
- Occurs when no party can form a government or the ruling party loses majority due to defections or resignations.
- Example: Manipur (1977)
- Breakdown of law and order or internal disturbances
- Imposed during serious law and order situations or insurgencies where the state government cannot maintain control.
- Example: Punjab (1990s)
- Hung Assembly or Loss of Majority
- Occurs when a government fails to prove confidence in the legislature or loses support through a no-confidence motion, without an alternative government being formed.
- Example: Bihar, Maharashtra
- Postponement or inability to hold legislative assembly elections
- When elections cannot be held as scheduled due to extraordinary circumstances such as emergency, electoral code violations, or security concerns.
- Example: Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab
- Failure to comply with any directions of the Union government (Article 365)
- If a state government refuses to implement Union directives or laws, it can trigger President’s Rule.
What is the duration of its imposition?
| Stage | Duration | Approval Required |
| Initial Proclamation | 6 months | Simple majority in both Houses within 2 months |
| Extension (up to 1 year) | Each 6 months | Simple majority in both Houses for each extension |
| Extension (beyond 1 year, up to max 3 years) | Each 6 months | Simple majority + two conditions as per 44th CAA:
1. National Emergency in effect 2. Election Commission certifies inability to hold elections |
| Termination | Immediate | None, done by President if new government is formed or elections held |
What was the envisaged application of the provision of President’s Rule?
-
- Protect unity and integrity of the nation: Prevents state-level crises from affecting national security (e.g., rise of militancy in Punjab and J&K).
- Address governance breakdown and uphold law and order: Ensures administration continues amid political instability or violence (e.g., Manipur’s ethnic conflicts).
- Enable continuity of constitutional government: Provides space for fresh elections or alternate government when majority is lost (e.g., frequent stints in Uttar Pradesh after coalition failures).
- Safeguard federal cooperation and constitutional compliance: Mandates state adherence to Union laws and basic constitutional values, especially secularism (guided by S.R. Bommai judgment).
- Restore democratic legitimacy: Used as a mechanism to allow elections and democratic revival after emergency or instability (e.g., Punjab, post-militancy).
How has President’s Rule actually been applied in practice?
Since Independence, President’s Rule has been invoked 135 times, starting with 1951.
- 1951: First imposition of President’s Rule in Punjab under Article 356.1966–1977: Indira Gandhi’s government used Article 356 about 39 times, often against opposition-ruled states.
- 1977: Janata Party government at Centre dismisses several Congress-ruled states, leading to political controversy and Supreme Court refusals to interfere in Centre’s decisions.
- 1980: Indira Gandhi returns, dismisses eight opposition-ruled governments; practice questioned nationwide.
- 1992: President’s Rule imposed in Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh after Babri Masjid demolition and law and order breakdown.
- 1994 – S.R. Bommai Case: Supreme Court introduces judicial review; Centre must justify Article 356 use, floor test mandated in Assembly, curbs arbitrary dissolution; landmark in restricting misuse.
- 2005 – Rameshwar Prasad Case: In the context of Bihar Hung Assembly, court declared the dissolution of the state Assembly unconstitutional. It highlighted Article 192(2), which mandates the Governor to seek the opinion of the Election Commission and act accordingly.
- 2016 – Arunachal Pradesh Judgment: Supreme Court reinstates dismissed government, asserts limits on Centre’s power over states.
- 2018 – Jammu & Kashmir: President’s Rule imposed after Governor’s Rule and continued till the state was reorganised in 2019.
- 2019 – Maharashtra: President’s Rule imposed due to a hung assembly; Supreme Court questioned whether the Governor had the power to intervene by ordering a floor test when there is internal dissent within a party.
- 2023 – Manipur: President’s Rule imposed and repeatedly extended following ethnic violence and persistent political instability.
States with frequent impositions:
- Manipur: 11 times (ethnic conflict, insurgency)
- Punjab: 9 times (militancy and political instability)
- Uttar Pradesh: 10 times (political instability)
What are the effects of imposing President’s Rule on a state?
Governance Structure Changes:
| Legislative | During President’s Rule, the State Assembly is either dissolved or kept in suspended animation, and Parliament assumes its legislative powers under Article 357, temporarily curtailing state autonomy. |
| Executive | The executive powers of the state government—normally exercised by the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister—are transferred to the Governor, who acts on behalf of the President. |
| Judiciary | The judiciary, including the High Court, continues to function as usual, ensuring judicial oversight remains intact. |
Political and Administrative Effects:
- Removes the mandate of the popularly elected representatives during that period.
- Temporary Policy Paralysis; No New Laws or Bills Passed.
- Stagnation of Welfare Schemes and Governance
Impact on Political Power:
- In about two-thirds of cases, President’s Rule ends with a change in the ruling party/coalition after fresh elections, indicating political shifts rather than administrative continuity.
Effect on Federalism and Democracy:
- President’s Rule can strain Centre-State relations by centralising power and sidelining elected state governments..
- Its misuse risks undermining democratic processes and federal balance.
What safeguards have been recommended to prevent misuse?
Apart from the Judicial pronouncements, several Committees have recommended measures to prevent unjustified use of president rule:
- Sarkaria Commission: President’s Rule should be a last resort, recommended prior warning before imposition.
- Punchhi Commission: Strengthen federalism by limiting Article 356 to genuine crises with clear guidelines and timely judicial review.
- 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission: Depoliticise Governors and formalise floor tests to handle political instability within states.
- Law Commission: Codify procedures for imposing President’s Rule and ensure judicial oversight and prompt election
President’s Rule under Article 356 remains vital for tackling governance failures, as seen in Manipur, but misuse risks federalism. Post S.R. Bommai, judicial safeguards ensure cautious application to protect democracy and Centre–State balance.
Subscribe to our Youtube Channel for more Valuable Content – TheStudyias
Download the App to Subscribe to our Courses – Thestudyias
The Source’s Authority and Ownership of the Article is Claimed By THE STUDY IAS BY MANIKANT SINGH
