Dr. B. R. Ambedkar remarked in the constituent assembly that the extensive powers granted by Article 356 would essentially become a ‘dead letter’ and should only be utilized as a last resort. However, these provisions have turned into a powerful tool against ruling political parties in states opposing the central government.

The way President’s Rule was proclaimed on various occasions has raised many questions about the effective use of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. At times the situation really demanded it. But at other times, President’s Rule was imposed purely on political grounds to topple the state government formed by the political parties other than the one ruling at centre, even if that particular party enjoyed a majority in the Legislative Assembly. 

Suspending or dissolving assemblies and not giving a chance to the other political parties to form governments in states have been due to partisan consideration of the Union Government, for which Article 356 has been clearly misused.

• For Example, when general elections were held after the end of the National Emergency in 1977, Janata Party came into power and dismissed nine state governments (where Congress was in power) on the ground that assemblies in those states no longer represented the wishes of the electorate. 
• Similarly, when the Congress government returned to power in 1980, it repeated the same in all nine states and by giving the same reason.

Nearly every state has experienced President’s rule, with the exceptions being Telangana and Chhattisgarh. 

• Uttar Pradesh has seen the president’s rule on  9 occasions whereas Manipur has faced it on 10 occasions.
• In 2021, Puducherry  went under President rule because the union territory government lost the majority in the house and remained so till the election. 
• Similarly, in 2019 Maharashtra  faced the president’s rule from 12 November to 23 November– when elections led to inconclusive results with no clear majority, hence the Governor imposed President Rule for a short duration.

Judicial Review of President rule in India

The Parliament, through 38th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1975,  made the satisfaction of  the President in invoking Article 356 as final and cannot be challenged in court. However, this condition was removed by the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 and made the ‘satisfaction’ of the president open to Judicial Review.

S.R. Bommai vs Union of India Case(1994)

Background: In the S. R. Bommai case, the supreme court gave one of the landmark judgments regarding the frequent misuse of article 356. Mr S.R Bommai was the Karnataka Chief Minister between August 1988 and April 1989. He led the Janata Dal government which was dismissed on 21st April 1989 when President’s rule article 356 was imposed in Karnataka. 

Overview of the Judgement:

• Subject to judicial review: The verdict concluded that the power of the President to dismiss a state government is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.
• Relevant material: The proclamation of the president’s rule must be based on relevant material and it is the responsibility of the central government to prove that such relevant material exists for the imposition of the president’s rule.
• Dissolution of assembly: The legislative assembly should be dissolved only after the approval of the president’s rule by the parliament. Till such an approval it can be suspended.
• Revival of government: In case the proclamation does not get the approval of both the houses of parliament, it lapses at the end of a period of two months and the dismissed government is revived. The legislative assembly that has been suspended can also be revived.

Financial Emergency 

According to Article 360, if the President believes that a scenario has emerged that threatens India’s financial stability or credit, or that of any portion of its territory, the President can announce a financial emergency through a proclamation.

Approval of  the Financial Emergency by the Parliament

• Condition 1: Approval from both houses of Parliament must be obtained within two months of the date the financial emergency proclamation is issued.. 
• Condition 2: If the proclamation of emergency is made and the Lok Sabha is either dissolved or is dissolved within two months without receiving approval, the proclamation will remain in effect until 30 days after the first session of the newly formed Lok Sabha, as long as the Rajya Sabha has approved it during that time.
• Required majority: Each house of Parliament must pass a resolution to approve the financial emergency with a simple majority of the members present and voting.

Duration the Financial Emergency

Once the Parliament approves it, the financial emergency will stay in effect until it is revoked. There is no limitation on its duration and repeated periodic parliamentary approval is also not required.

Effects of Financial Emergency

During the duration that any financial emergency proclamation is in effect, the Union Government may issue directions to any of the states concerning financial matters in the following ways:

• The President can instruct the states to lower the salaries and allowances of any or all groups of government employees. 
• The President may require that all money bills passed by the State Legislature be reserved for Parliament’s consideration.
• The President can also direct reductions in salaries and allowances for central government employees. Similar directives may also be issued for the judges of the Supreme Court and High Court.

Criticism of Emergency

Some members of the Constituent Assembly like H.V. Kamath, H N Kunzuru, etc have criticised the incorporation of emergency provisions in the constitution on the following grounds:

• The federal character of the constitution will be destroyed and the union will become all-powerful which will defeat the purpose of having a federal form of government.
• The powers of both the Union and the states will be entirely centralized within the union executive.
• The President will become a dictator as it holds all power to proclaim emergency provisions.
• The financial independence of the states will be undermined. According to H.Z. Kunuru, ‘the financial emergency provisions present a significant threat to states’ financial autonomy.’ 
• Fundamental rights could become irrelevant, leading to the erosion of the democratic foundation of the constitution.

While arguing in favor of the emergency provisions during the Constituent Assembly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar acknowledged their potential for misuse. However, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar also rightly observed that “the Constitution of India can be both unitary as well as federal according to the requirement of time and circumstances for these emergency provisions. In ordinary circumstances, it operates as a federal government, but in emergency situations, it is structured to function more like a unitary system.”