About President's Rule: President's Rule, also known as State Emergency or Constitutional Emergency, is imposed under Article 356 when the President is satisfied that the government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. During this period, the Union Government assumes control over the State's executive and legislative functions until normal constitutional governance is restored.
Constitutional Provisions Related to President's Rule
| Article | Provision | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Article 355 | Duty of the Union | It is the constitutional duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that governance in every State is carried on according to the Constitution. It forms the constitutional basis for Union intervention before invoking Article 356. |
| Article 356 | Failure of Constitutional Machinery | If the President, on receipt of the Governor's report or otherwise, is satisfied that the constitutional machinery in a State has failed, a Proclamation of President's Rule may be issued. |
| Article 357 | Exercise of Legislative Powers | Parliament assumes the legislative powers of the State Legislature during President's Rule. It may also authorize the President or any other authority to exercise these powers. |
| Article 365 | Failure to Comply with Union Directions | If a State fails to comply with lawful directions issued by the Union Government, the President may treat such failure as evidence that the constitutional machinery has broken down. |
Parliamentary Approval
Approval by Parliament: The Presidential Proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months of its issuance. If the Lok Sabha is dissolved during this period, the Rajya Sabha may approve it first, while the newly constituted Lok Sabha must approve it within 30 days of its first sitting.
Duration: President's Rule initially remains in force for six months and may be extended every six months with Parliament's approval, up to a maximum of three years.
o under the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1978, extension beyond one year is permissible only if a National Emergency is in operation or the Election Commission of India certifies that elections cannot be conducted.
o Any continuation beyond three years requires a Constitutional Amendment, as was done through the 67th and 68th Constitutional Amendments during the Punjab insurgency.
Maximum Period: President's Rule can continue for a maximum period of three years. However, extension beyond one year is permitted only if:
- A National Emergency under Article 352 is in operation; and
- The Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be held in the concerned State.
Revocation of President's Rule: The President may revoke the Proclamation at any time without requiring parliamentary approval once constitutional governance can be restored. Normally, President's Rule ends after a new elected government assumes office following Assembly elections.
Effects of President's Rule
On the Executive
- The Governor administers the State on behalf of the President and acts according to the advice of the Union Government.
- The Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister is dismissed, and executive authority is exercised by the Governor under the control of the Centre.
On the Legislature
- The State Legislative Assembly may either be suspended or dissolved depending on the circumstances.
- Parliament assumes the legislative powers of the State Legislature and may delegate these powers to the President or another authority under Article 357.
On the Judiciary
- The High Court continues to function independently, and its constitutional powers remain unaffected.
- President's Rule does not suspend judicial review or alter the constitutional position of the High Courts.
Fundamental Rights: Unlike a National Emergency, President’s Rule does not affect citizens’ Fundamental Rights. During a National Emergency, Article 19 freedoms may be suspended, and the enforcement of other Fundamental Rights (except Articles 20 and 21) may also be restricted in accordance with constitutional provisions.
Misuse of Article 356
- Dismissal of Opposition Governments: Successive Union Governments have used Article 356 to remove State governments controlled by rival political parties after changes in power at the Centre.
o Example: After the 1977 and 1980 General Elections, several State governments were dismissed following the change in the ruling party at the Centre.
- Political Instability Treated as Constitutional Breakdown: Loss of majority or internal political disputes were often treated as constitutional failure without giving the government an opportunity to prove its majority on the Assembly floor.
- Corrective Measure: S.R. Bommai (1994) made the floor test mandatory in most situations.
- Misuse of Governor's Reports: Governors have occasionally submitted reports based on political assumptions rather than objective constitutional evidence, leading to controversial proclamations.
o Example: Bihar Assembly Dissolution Case (2005).
- Arbitrary Dissolution of Legislative Assemblies: In several cases, Legislative Assemblies were dissolved before exploring alternative governments or conducting a floor test, thereby weakening democratic principles.
- Erosion of Cooperative Federalism: Repeated political use of Article 356 created distrust between the Union and the States, adversely affecting the spirit of cooperative federalism.
Landmark Judgements Regarding President's Rule
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): After the Janata Party came to power at the Centre in 1977, it advised the dismissal of several Congress-ruled State governments. These States challenged the constitutional validity of the proposed action under Article 356.
Supreme Court's Verdict
- The Court held that the President's satisfaction under Article 356 is generally not beyond judicial scrutiny, but judicial review would be very limited.
- It observed that courts would interfere only in cases of mala fide action or unconstitutional exercise of power.
- This judgment largely favoured executive discretion, which was substantially modified later in S.R. Bommai (1994).
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): The Karnataka Government headed by S.R. Bommai was dismissed on the Governor's recommendation without allowing it to prove its majority on the floor of the Legislative Assembly.
Supreme Court's Verdict
- Federalism is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
- President's Rule is subject to judicial review.
- Floor test is the only constitutional method to determine the majority of a government.
- The Governor's report is not conclusive and can be examined by courts.
- If Article 356 is declared unconstitutional, the Court can restore the dismissed State Government and revive the dissolved Assembly.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): Following the 2005 Bihar Assembly elections, the Governor recommended dissolution of the newly elected Assembly before it convened, citing fears of unethical political defections.
Supreme Court's Verdict
- The Court held that the Governor's report was based on assumptions rather than objective material.
- Dissolution of the Assembly was declared unconstitutional.
- However, since fresh elections had already been conducted, the Assembly was not restored.
Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): The case arose from the constitutional crisis in Arunachal Pradesh involving the Governor's actions before the imposition of President's Rule.
Supreme Court's Verdict
- The Governor cannot exercise arbitrary discretionary powers beyond the Constitution.
- Governors must remain politically neutral constitutional authorities.
- Their actions must facilitate constitutional governance rather than influence political outcomes.
Committees and Commissions Related to Article 356
Sarkaria Commission (1983–1988)
- Article 356 should be used only as a measure of last resort.
- Before imposing President's Rule, every possibility of forming an alternative government should be explored.
- Floor test should be conducted wherever possible to determine legislative majority.
- The Governor's report must be objective, impartial and based on verifiable facts.
National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC), 2002
- Reiterated the principles laid down in S.R. Bommai.
- Strengthened the need for judicial review of Presidential Proclamations.
- Suggested that Article 356 should be invoked only in exceptional constitutional situations.
Punchhi Commission (2007–2010)
- Article 356 should remain an extraordinary constitutional remedy.
- Governors should act as independent constitutional authorities, free from political influence.
- The Union should prefer localized or limited intervention wherever possible instead of dismissing the entire State Government.
- Greater emphasis should be placed on cooperative federalism and political dialogue before invoking Article 356.
Way Forward to Ensure Responsible Application of President's Rule
- Strict Adherence to S.R. Bommai Principles: President's Rule should be imposed only after objective constitutional assessment. Whenever a government's majority is in doubt, a floor test should be the primary method for determining legislative confidence.
- Ensure Political Neutrality of Governors: Governors should discharge their constitutional responsibilities impartially and submit fact-based reports rather than politically influenced recommendations.
- Use Article 356 Only as a Measure of Last Resort: All democratic alternatives—including inviting other parties to form the government, coalition formation, or conducting a floor test—should be exhausted before recommending President's Rule.
- Strengthen Judicial Oversight: Courts should continue to exercise prompt judicial review over arbitrary proclamations to prevent misuse while respecting genuine constitutional emergencies.
- Strengthen Cooperative Federalism: Greater consultation and dialogue between the Union and States can resolve many political disputes without resorting to Article 356, thereby preserving the federal balance.
- Implement Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission Recommendations: The recommendations relating to objective Governor's reports, floor tests, and minimum use of Article 356 should be institutionalized through constitutional conventions.
Conclusion: President's Rule is an exceptional constitutional mechanism designed to preserve constitutional governance rather than political expediency. Its legitimacy depends on judicial oversight, impartial gubernatorial conduct, constitutional morality, and cooperative federalism, ensuring that democratic governance and State autonomy are restored at the earliest possible opportunity.
