Article 356 of Indian Constitution Introduction 

• After N Biren Singh resigned as Manipur’s Chief Minister recently, it was reported that the BJP leadership was considering its options. 
• Sources indicated that if the party was unable to agree on a consensus candidate for the Chief Minister’s position, the state might have to be placed under President’s rule.

What is Article 356?

• It empowers the President of India to impose central rule, also known as President’s Rule, when a state’s government is unable to function according to constitutional provisions. 

• Article 356 of the Indian Constitution plays a crucial role in ensuring the proper functioning of state governments.

• In simpler terms, it allows the Union government to step in and take control of a state’s affairs if the state government fails to adhere to constitutional norms.

Key Constitutional Provisions Related to Article 356

• Article 355: It mandates the Union government to protect the states from external aggression and internal disturbances and ensure that states function according to constitutional principles.
• Article 356: This is the focal point of President’s Rule. It enables the President to take over the state’s governance if the constitutional machinery has broken down.
• Article 357: It allows Parliament to exercise legislative powers on behalf of the state under President’s Rule.
• Article 365: If a state fails to follow Union instructions, the President can assume direct control.
• Exception: The only exception to this is the functioning of High Courts, which remains unchanged.

What is The Process of Imposing President’s Rule? 

• Governor’s Report: The process begins when the President receives a report from the state’s Governor, indicating that the government is unable to function according to the Constitution.
• Presidential Proclamation: Upon receiving the report and confirming the situation, the President can issue a proclamation to impose President’s Rule.
• Parliamentary Approval: After the proclamation, both Houses of Parliament must approve it within two months by a simple majority.
• Duration of President’s Rule: Initially, President’s Rule lasts for six months but can be extended up to three years, subject to parliamentary approval every six months. However, following the 44th Amendment (1978), extensions beyond one year can only happen under specific conditions, such as:

• • Emergency has been declared in the country. 

• Election Commission certifies that President’s Rule is necessary due to difficulties in conducting state elections.  

Under Which Circumstances President’s Rule Can be Imposed? 

• Failure to form government: If the state legislature is unable to elect a Chief Minister within the specified timeframe. One prominent example is the imposition of President’s Rule in Karnataka (2007), when after the state elections, no party could form a government, and the Governor’s recommendation led to the imposition of central rule. Another instance was in Uttarakhand (2016), where the state government failed to prove majority following a political crisis, leading to the dissolution of the assembly and the imposition of President’s Rule. 
• Loss of majority: If a state government loses the majority due to the collapse of a coalition or a no-confidence vote. A striking example is the Arunachal Pradesh crisis (2016), where a rebellion by dissident members of the Congress led to the loss of majority by the ruling party. Following this, President’s Rule was imposed, despite claims of political maneuvering. 
• Postponement of elections: Situations like natural disasters, epidemics, or war may delay elections, justifying President’s Rule. Jammu & Kashmir (2018) is an example where elections were repeatedly postponed due to security concerns amid political instability and insurgency. In such cases, the Union government has intervened and exercised executive authority to manage the state’s affairs. Uttarakhand (2016) also faced a similar situation when elections were delayed, contributing to the eventual intervention of central governance.

Impact of President’s Rule on the State

• Governor’s Role: The Governor assumes full executive control and manages the administration on behalf of the President, thus replacing the state government’s authority. An example is the Punjab (1987-1992) period when President’s Rule was imposed due to insurgency, and the Governor Shivinder Singh managed the state administration directly for an extended period.
• Legislative Assembly: The state legislature is either dissolved or suspended. This removes democratic functions at the state level. A key example is Jammu & Kashmir (1990-2002), where the state legislature was kept in suspended animation due to ongoing militancy and unrest, with the central government directly managing the state’s affairs without legislative participation.
• Parliament’s Role: Parliament takes over the legislative functions of the state and can make laws on matters that typically fall under the state’s jurisdiction. For instance, during the imposition of President’s Rule in Delhi (2018), Parliament assumed the responsibility of making laws on local matters, bypassing the Delhi Legislative Assembly. This centralization of legislative power can create a vacuum in governance at the local level, with the state-specific needs often going unnoticed. The invocation of President’s Rule in Delhi operates within the framework of Article 239AB of the Indian Constitution. This provision grants the Lieutenant Governor (LG) the authority to recommend such action if deemed necessary for the “proper administration” of the national capital.
• Governance Disruption: No new state laws can be passed, and administrative work is managed by Union bureaucrats, often resulting in policy paralysis. For instance, Puducherry (1991-1993) faced political instability, leading to frequent impositions of President’s Rule. During these periods, there were significant delays in implementing state welfare schemes, causing frustration among the local population. 
• Elections: Fresh elections must be conducted within six months, unless an extension is granted under specific conditions. In cases where elections are postponed, like Manipur (2001), President’s Rule may be extended beyond the typical six months, causing further governance delays and impacting the democratic process.

History of President’s Rule in India

• Since its inception in 1950, President’s Rule has been imposed 134 times across various states and Union Territories. States like Manipur and Uttar Pradesh have seen the most frequent impositions, but states such as Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab have spent the longest periods under central rule due to prolonged conflict and instability.
• States with Longest Duration under President’s Rule:
  • Jammu & Kashmir: Over 12 years (4,668 days), largely due to militancy.
  • Punjab: More than 10 years (3,878 days), due to insurgency and unrest.
  • Puducherry: Over 7 years (2,739 days), due to frequent political instability.

Supreme Court’s Judgements on President’s Rule in India

• S.R. Bommai Case: Landmark Judgment on President’s Rule: The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case is a landmark ruling that introduced critical guidelines for the imposition of President’s Rule:

• • Judicial Review: The Court held that the President’s decision to impose President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, ensuring checks on its misuse.
  • Material Consideration: Courts can assess if there is sufficient material to justify the imposition of President’s Rule.
  • Federalism: The judgment reinforced the importance of federalism, emphasizing that states should not be treated as mere appendages of the Centre.
  • Reinstatement of the State Government: If Parliament does not approve the proclamation within two months, the state government is automatically reinstated.

Criticism of President’s Rule

• Frequent Invocation: President’s Rule has been invoked over 100 times, often for political reasons. One notable instance is the Kerala (1959) case, where President’s Rule was imposed after the government led by E.M.S. Namboodiripad was dismissed, ostensibly due to issues of land reform, though the decision was widely perceived as politically motivated by the central government of the time. 
• Political Manipulation: It has been used to dismiss opposition-led state governments, especially during times of political conflict. A famous example is the dismissal of the Bihar government (1995) led by Lalu Prasad Yadav, which was perceived as politically motivated, given that it was dismissed after a breakdown in central-state relations and charges of corruption. The central government at the time, led by the BJP, was accused of using Article 356 to curb opposition power in the state.
• Centralization of Power: By transferring power from the state to the Union, Article 356 has undermined the federal structure of India. The Mizoram (1967-1972) instance exemplifies this issue when the state faced severe political unrest, and the central government took control. While necessary to manage the situation, the period saw the Union take charge of virtually all governance, sidelining state autonomy and creating tension between the Centre and the state. 
• Suspension of Democracy: The imposition of President’s Rule disrupts the democratic process and denies citizens the right to have an elected state government. An example of this is the Nagaland (1975-1989) period, where prolonged insurgency and political instability led to the suspension of democratic elections, with the Union government taking over governance for nearly 14 years. This significantly weakened the democratic process at the state level, creating a situation where local needs and concerns went unaddressed. 
• Dubious Grounds: In some instances, states have been dismissed due to internal conflicts within the ruling party, rather than genuine governance failures. One such example is the Uttar Pradesh (1997) case, where the government of Mayawati was dismissed after a rebellion within her own party, even though the state was not experiencing a constitutional breakdown. This raised concerns about the political use of Article 356, as it seemed more like a tool to manage intra-party disputes rather than address actual governance crises. 

Key Recommendations for Reform

• The Sarkaria Commission, established in 1983 by the Government of India, was tasked with examining the relationship between the Centre and states, particularly focusing on federal governance and the misuse of Article 356, which deals with the imposition of President’s Rule. The Commission made several key recommendations to curb the misuse of President’s Rule and reinforce the federal structure of India.
  • Last Resort Use: The Sarkaria Commission emphasized that President’s Rule should be invoked only as a last resort, and not as a routine response to political instability or conflicts. The Commission suggested that before resorting to President’s Rule, the Union government must explore other options such as dissolution of the assembly, or intervention by the Governor to address governance issues within the state.
  • Prior Warnings: One of the key recommendations was that the Central government should issue prior warnings to the state government before invoking Article 356. These warnings could be given in the form of official communications outlining the constitutional violations or governance failures.  
  • Federal Integrity: The Sarkaria Commission argued that the misuse of Article 356 undermines India’s federal structure and the autonomy of states. It recommended that President’s Rule be used sparingly to preserve states’ autonomy and their democratic processes.

• • Punchhi Commission: The Punchhi Commission, set up in 2007 by the Government of India, focused on reviewing the federal structure and providing recommendations for enhancing federal governance. In relation to Article 356, the Commission made significant suggestions to minimize the overreach of central control and reduce the negative impact on federalism.
    • Localized Approach to President’s Rule: One of the Punchhi Commission’s major recommendations was a localized approach to invoking President’s Rule. The Commission proposed that instead of imposing central rule over the entire state, only specific areas of the state that are facing political instability or constitutional breakdown could come under central rule. This would ensure that the Union government’s intervention is targeted and proportionate to the crisis, avoiding a blanket suspension of state governance. The Commission believed this approach would prevent the unnecessary disruption of governance in areas of the state that were functioning properly. 

• Devolution of Powers: The Punchhi Commission also recommended that the powers and responsibilities of the Union government should be clearly defined and that any intervention under Article 356 should respect the principles of devolution of power. This would ensure that interventions are not seen as punitive but rather as measures to restore constitutional order, with a focus on cooperative federalism.

• Safeguards Against Political Manipulation: The Punchhi Commission highlighted the political misuse of Article 356 and recommended safeguards to ensure that central rule is not imposed for partisan purposes. This included the need for Parliamentary approval for the imposition of President’s Rule and increased judicial oversight to ensure that the grounds for invoking Article 356 are genuine.

Way Forward: Strengthening Federalism

• Strict Adherence to Guidelines: The central government should adhere strictly to the judicial guidelines outlined in the S.R. Bommai case to prevent arbitrary use of President’s Rule.
• Strengthening State Institutions: Mechanisms must be established to address state-level crises without resorting to central intervention.
• Fast-tracked Judicial Oversight: Judicial reviews of proclamations should be expedited to ensure quick resolution of politically motivated misuse.
• Alternative Measures: Before invoking President’s Rule, other measures such as dialogue, financial assistance, or the Governor’s intervention should be considered.
• Decentralized Crisis Management: Explore alternatives like targeted interventions for specific areas within a state rather than imposing blanket President’s Rule.