Understanding Article 356: President’s Rule in India and Its Implications

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, commonly known as President’s Rule, is one of the most debated provisions of the Constitution. It allows the Central government to take over the administration of a State when there is a breakdown of Constitutional machinery. While designed as a safeguard to maintain Constitutional governance, its frequent invocation has raised concerns about its misuse for political purposes. In this article, we explore the historical background, legal implications, and notable cases associated with the President’s Rule, as well as proposals for its reform.

What is Article 356?

Article 356 empowers the President of India to impose President’s Rule in a State if it is determined that the State’s government is unable to function in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This can occur based on a report from the State’s Governor or other reliable information. When President’s Rule is imposed, the State government is effectively dissolved, and the Central government, through the Governor, assumes control. Parliament also takes over the legislative functions of the State, ensuring governance continues while the State’s autonomy is temporarily suspended.

Historical Context and Background of Article 356

The roots of Article 356 can be traced back to Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which empowered Governors to take over provincial administration in cases of governance failure. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chief architect of the Indian Constitution, included Article 356 with the hope that it would be used sparingly—only in the most exceptional circumstances. However, contrary to this expectation, the provision has been invoked over 125 times since independence, often attracting criticism for its use as a political tool rather than as a safeguard for Constitutional order.

Consequences of Imposing President’s Rule in a State

When President’s Rule is imposed in a State, several significant changes occur. The State’s elected Council of Ministers, led by the Chief Minister, is dissolved. The Governor, acting on behalf of the President, takes charge of the State’s administration. The State legislature is either suspended or dissolved, and its legislative powers are transferred to Parliament. Additionally, the Central government gains the authority to legislate on State matters. Any laws passed by Parliament or Ordinances issued by the President during this period remain valid even after the President’s Rule is lifted, unless repealed by the newly formed State legislature.

Legal and Constitutional Debates Around Article 356

The potential for political misuse of Article 356 has been a longstanding concern. The broad phrasing of “failure of Constitutional machinery” leaves room for subjective interpretation, allowing Central governments to dismiss opposition-led State governments under questionable circumstances.

The most landmark case addressing the misuse of Article 356 is S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994). In this case, the Supreme Court established strict guidelines for the imposition of President’s Rule, declaring that the President’s satisfaction in invoking Article 356 is subject to judicial review. The Court ruled that President’s Rule can only be imposed on the basis of concrete evidence and that the Governor’s report must provide a valid justification. The Bommai judgment also stressed the importance of conducting a floor test in the State Assembly to determine the majority, rather than relying solely on the Governor’s report.

Notable Cases of President’s Rule in India

Over the years, Article 356 has been invoked numerous times, often controversially. One of the most prominent examples of its misuse was during the tenure of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, when President’s Rule was imposed 35 times in various States to dismiss governments led by opposition parties. Similarly, in 1977, following the Emergency, the Janata Party government used Article 356 to dissolve several Congress-led State governments.

In more recent years, the Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) case highlighted the misuse of President’s Rule in Bihar, where the Assembly was dissolved based on unsubstantiated claims of horse-trading among legislators. The Supreme Court later declared the dissolution unconstitutional, emphasizing that the imposition of President’s Rule must be based on valid and objective grounds.

Criticism and Reforms Proposed for Article 356

Article 356 has faced extensive criticism for undermining the federal structure of the Indian Constitution. Critics argue that it allows the Central government to interfere in the functioning of State governments, especially when those governments are ruled by opposition parties. The vagueness of the terms “Constitutional breakdown” and “otherwise” in the Article has provided the Central government with broad discretionary power, leading to its frequent misuse.

Several Commissions have proposed reforms to curb the misuse of Article 356. The Sarkaria Commission, established in the 1980s to review Center-State relations, recommended that Article 356 should only be used as a last resort and that a State government should be given sufficient opportunity to rectify any issues before its dismissal. The Punchhi Commission later suggested that President’s Rule should be restricted to localized areas within a State, rather than applying it to the entire State, and recommended shortening its duration to three months.

The S.R. Bommai judgment has also played a crucial role in preventing arbitrary use of Article 356. The ruling emphasized that any proclamation under Article 356 must be backed by justifiable reasons and that such proclamations are open to judicial review. It also introduced the idea of the floor test as a necessary procedure to confirm whether a government has lost its majority in the assembly.

Conclusion

Article 356 was introduced to safeguard Constitutional governance in States, but its history of misuse has raised serious questions about its impact on India’s federal structure. Judicial interventions, especially the S.R. Bommai case, have curbed its arbitrary application, but concerns remain. To protect the autonomy of States, it is essential to continue refining the application of President’s Rule, ensuring that it is used only in genuine cases of governance failure and not as a political tool. As India’s democracy evolves, striking the right balance between Central oversight and State autonomy remains critical.

Sharing is caring!