President’s Rule

Article 356 known as ‘President’s Rule’ or ‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency’ has become one of the most controversial and most criticized provisions of the Constitution. Dr B R Ambedkar had said that the Article 356 would remain a ‘dead-letter’ and would be used only as a measure of last resort. However, it turned out that the provision was abused on multiple occasions.

Constitutional Provisions

Proclamation

The President’s Rule can be proclaimed under Article 356 on two grounds — one mentioned in Article 356 itself and another in Article 365:

Article 356 empowers the President to issue a proclamation,on a report of the governor of the state or otherwise if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a state can not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the house.

For example, a government fall due to breakdown of a coalition, or loss of confidence of the house.

Article 365 says that whenever a state fails to comply with or to give effect to any direction from the Centre, it will be lawful to deem that the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Parliamentary Approval

A proclamation imposing President’s Rule must be approved by both the Houses of Parliament by simple majority within two months from the date of its issue.

The President’s rule continues for six months and can be extended to for a maximum period of three years, with Parliamentary approval, every six months.

In the event of dissolution of Lok Sabha during the same period, the proclamation survives until 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok Sabha after its reconstitution, provided the Rajya Sabha approves it in the meantime.

Amendment

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978, restrained the Parliamentary power such that, for the extension of President’s Rule beyond one year, the following conditions be satisfied:

a proclamation of National Emergency should be in operation in the whole of India, or in the whole or any part of the state;
the Election Commission must certify that the general elections to the legislative assembly of the concerned state cannot be held

Revoking

The President may revoke the proclamation at any time by a subsequent proclamation without any parliamentary approval.

President’s powers during the proclamation

He can take up the executive powers in the state.
He can authorize Parliament to exercise functions of the state legislature.
He can take all other necessary steps including suspension of constitutional provisions regarding any authority in the state.

The President dismisses the state council of ministers headed by the chief minister. The President either suspends or dissolves the state legislative assembly, whose functions are performed by the Parliament then.

The President, exercises the executive authority, through the Governor, with the help of the chief secretary of the state or the advisors appointed by the President.

However, the President cannot assume to himself the powers vested in the concerned state high court or suspend the provisions of the Constitution relating to it.

Read Also RBI Surplus Fund Transfer to GOI

Special case of Jammu and Kashmir

Till recently, Jammu and Kashmir had a constitution of its own and some provisions related to Governor’s rule in the state.

In the event of failure of government machinery, Section 92 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir is invoked by the Governor, with the consent of President of India, to bring the state under Governor’s rule.

If it is not possible to revoke the governor’s rule within six months of imposition, then president’s rule under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution is imposed.

However, since Article 370 has been abolished and Jammu and Kashmir made a Union territory, such provisions cease to exist.

Recent Proclamations

The latest proclamation was in Jammu and Kashmir, which had plunged into a political crisis after the coalition government collapsed.

Arunachal Pradesh came under President’s Rule briefly in 2015-16 after some rebel MLA’s asked the governor to impeach the Speaker.

Uttarakhand was also brought under President’s rule but was quashed by the State’s high court.

Delhi, Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand were also under President’s rule in the recent past.

Court cases related to President’s rule

S R Bommai vs Union of India Case (1994)

It was a landmark judgement which had huge impact on Centre-State Relations.
The Supreme Court held that the Proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review (as provided by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978) on grounds of mala fide intention;
It also said that the imposition should be justified based on relevant material by the centre.
The court can revive dissolved or suspended state governments if the imposition is unjustified and not constitutional;
The President can only suspend the assembly; Dissolution of the state assembly can be done only after approval of Parliament;
Financial instability and corruption allegations are not grounds enough for the imposition of President Rule;
The state government shall be given enough opportunities to comply with directives are issued (article 365);
Any measure or action taken by the state government for the protection of secularism can’t be led to the use of Article 356;
The governor should exhaust the alternatives to form the government, in the event of resignation or dismissal of a government, before recommending for the imposition of President’s Rule.
The Supreme Court held that power under Article 356 is an exceptional power and to be used only in case of exigencies.

Various Commissions on President’s Rule

Sarkaria Commission

Sarkaria Commission found the Article misused in 90% of the cases for political purposes.

So it recommended that:

The Proclamation should cite the ‘reasons’ as to why the State cannot be run as per the provisions of the Constitution.
A warning to be issued to the State government before resorting to the use of Article 356.
Not to be used to serve political purposes.

It also recommended for the amendment of Article 356 so as to make dissolution of the State Legislature only after approval by the Parliament.

Punchhi Commission

It recommended for the incorporation of guidelines set forth in the landmark judgement of the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai V. Union of India (1994) in the constitution.
It recommended ‘Localized Emergency’, to tackle issues without dissolving the state legislative assembly, provided by an independent Statute.

National Commission for the Review of Working of the Constitution

The National Commission recommended the regarding President’s rule:

Article 356 should not be deleted, but it must be used sparingly and only as a remedy of the last resort.
The question of whether the ministry in a state has lost the confidence of the assembly or not should be tested only on the floor of the House. The Governor should not be allowed to dismiss the ministry, so long as it enjoys the confidence of the House.
Even without the state being under a proclamation of emergency, President’s Rule may be continued if elections cannot be held. Article 356 should be amended to this effect.
The State Assembly should not be dissolved before the proclamation issued under Article 356 has been laid before Parliament. Article 356 should be amended to ensure this.

Chatisgarh and Telangana are the only states where the president’s rule has not been imposed so far.

Evaluation

Democracy and Federalism are basic features of Indian Polity and Constitution. The Union and states co-exist on the spirit of cooperative federalism.

The abuse of Article 356 is a threat to both of these core ideals. Improper use of such provisions hampers the spirit of cooperative federalism. When a democratically elected government is dismissed by unfair means it will destroy the edifice of the constitution. People will lose confidence in the government machinery if such arbitrary measures are adhered to. It will also lead to despotism and corrupted government system.

Other effects are unstable governments, which lead to economic fallouts like low investments etc.

It also leads to higher expenditure due to repeated general elections and administrative costs.

India is a diverse country. To maintain it, there need to be regional governments to give effect to the aspirations of people of different cultures and regions. Federalism is the force that holds this diversity together. Hence, the extraordinary measures such as President’s Rule must only be used to meet extreme exigencies.

Read Also Paris Climate Agreement