Article 365 of the Costitution of India with Case law
š Article 365 of the Constitution of India
Title: Effect of failure to comply with, or to give effect to, directions given by the Union
ā Text of Article 365:
āWhere any State has failed to comply with, or to give effect to, any directions given in the exercise of the executive power of the Union under any of the provisions of this Constitution, it shall be lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.ā
š Meaning and Purpose:
Article 365 empowers the Union (Central Government) to act when a State Government fails to comply with directions issued by the Centre.
It can be used to justify the imposition of Presidentās Rule under Article 356.
The article acts as a trigger clause to assess constitutional breakdown in a State.
š Conditions for Use:
| Condition | Description |
|---|---|
| Failure of the State | Must be in complying with a valid direction by the Centre |
| Direction must be constitutional | Must be under powers given in the Constitution |
| President's Satisfaction | The President must be satisfied that a constitutional breakdown has occurred in the State |
| Usually leads to | Article 356 invocation (Presidentās Rule) |
āļø Key Case Laws on Article 365:
1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
Citation: AIR 1994 SC 1918
Significance: Landmark case on misuse of Article 356 and Article 365.
Held:
The President's satisfaction is not beyond judicial review.
Article 365 can be invoked only in cases of real constitutional failure, not political disagreements.
It cannot be used to undermine State autonomy or for partisan purposes.
The Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines for imposing Presidentās Rule.
ā Effect on Article 365:
Article 365 cannot be used arbitrarily.
The breakdown must be factual and serious.
Judicial scrutiny is allowed if misuse is alleged.
2. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)
Citation: (2006) 2 SCC 1
Facts: Dissolution of Bihar Assembly before it could meet, based on alleged horse trading.
Held:
Misuse of Article 365 and 356 was declared unconstitutional.
The Governorās report was found to be based on suspicion, not facts.
3. Union of India v. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat (2016)
Facts: President's Rule imposed in Uttarakhand.
Held:
High Court set aside Presidentās Rule, saying the situation didnāt justify action under Article 365.
Emphasized the need for floor test and constitutional procedures before invoking Article 365 + 356.
š§ Key Takeaways:
| Point | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Article 365 is not independent | It is a supplement to Article 356 |
| Not automatically enforceable | Requires Presidential satisfaction and due process |
| Subject to Judicial Review | Courts can strike down misuse |
| Cannot override federal structure | Centre must respect State autonomy |
š Summary Table:
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Article | 365 |
| Subject | Effect of Stateās failure to follow Unionās directions |
| Outcome | May lead to Presidentās Rule under Article 356 |
| Major Case | S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) |
| Judicial Review | Allowed |
| Related Articles | 356 (Presidentās Rule), 355 (Unionās duty to protect States) |
| Nature | Federal safeguard, but prone to misuse if unchecked |
š Related Articles for Context:
| Article | Subject |
|---|---|
| Article 355 | Unionās duty to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance |
| Article 356 | Presidentās Rule in States |
| Article 256 | Union's power to give directions to States |
| Article 357 | Power of Parliament during Presidentās Rule |
RELATED Blog
0 comments