President’s Rule and Article 356 of Indian Constitution
President’s Rule and Article 356 of the Indian Constitution
1. Constitutional Provision: Article 356
Article 356 empowers the President of India to impose President’s Rule in any State.
It is invoked when the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor or otherwise, is satisfied that the governance of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution.
Under Article 356, the President can assume to himself the functions of the State government or direct that the powers be exercised through the Governor.
The State Legislative Assembly may be dissolved or suspended during this period.
2. Meaning of President’s Rule
Commonly known as “State Emergency” or “Central Rule”, President’s Rule results in:
Suspension or dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly.
The executive powers of the State government are assumed by the President.
The Governor administers the State on behalf of the President.
It represents a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State.
3. Grounds for Imposition of President’s Rule
Breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State.
Failure of the State government to comply with the Constitution.
Political instability—no party commands majority.
Law and order issues.
Governor’s report indicating inability of the government to function.
4. Procedure for Imposition
Governor submits a report to the President recommending President’s Rule.
President may issue a proclamation of President’s Rule.
The proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months.
Initial period: 6 months; can be extended up to 3 years with parliamentary approval every 6 months.
Extensions beyond one year require special conditions (e.g., national emergency, parliamentary consent).
5. Duration
Maximum 6 months initially.
Can be extended up to 3 years with parliamentary approval every 6 months.
Beyond one year extension requires:
National Emergency declared under Article 352.
Approval by Parliament every 6 months.
Certification by the Election Commission regarding the impossibility of holding elections.
6. Judicial Review and Misuse of Article 356
The power under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
The Supreme Court has established guidelines to prevent misuse.
The courts can examine whether the President’s satisfaction was based on relevant material.
Arbitrary or mala fide imposition can be struck down.
7. Landmark Case Law
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The most important case regarding Article 356.
Supreme Court laid down strict guidelines and limitations on the use of President’s Rule.
Key principles established:
The President’s satisfaction is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.
Courts can examine the material on which the President based his satisfaction.
President’s Rule can be imposed only in cases of actual breakdown of constitutional machinery.
The dissolution of the State Assembly cannot be arbitrary.
Floor test in the State Assembly is the proper method to determine majority.
Imposition of Article 356 should be a measure of last resort.
If found unconstitutional, the proclamation can be quashed.
This judgment restrained the arbitrary dismissal of State governments and strengthened federalism.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)
Reiterated that imposition of President’s Rule must be based on objective material.
The satisfaction of the President is justiciable.
Courts have the duty to examine the validity of such proclamations.
Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979)
Court emphasized the importance of constitutional machinery and protection of fundamental rights during President’s Rule.
Recognized that imposition should protect the democratic rights of citizens.
8. Criticism and Issues
Article 356 has been frequently misused for political reasons, especially to dismiss State governments ruled by opposition parties.
This misuse undermines the federal structure of the Constitution.
The S.R. Bommai judgment has helped curb some misuse but political controversies continue.
The frequent imposition of President’s Rule can disrupt democratic governance and delay elections.
9. Safeguards and Reforms
The Supreme Court’s guidelines in S.R. Bommai serve as a safeguard.
The requirement of parliamentary approval ensures legislative oversight.
The use of the floor test to prove majority reduces subjective dismissal.
Calls for further political and legal reforms to restrict misuse.
10. Summary Table
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Constitutional Article | Article 356 |
| Purpose | To ensure governance in States as per Constitution |
| Trigger | Breakdown of constitutional machinery in State |
| Authority | President of India, based on Governor’s report or other material |
| Duration | Initial 6 months; up to 3 years with Parliament approval |
| Judicial Review | Yes, satisfaction of President is justiciable |
| Landmark Case | S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) |
| Safeguards | Floor test, parliamentary approval, judicial review |
✅ Conclusion
Article 356 is a powerful constitutional tool designed to protect the unity and integrity of India by allowing the President to take over State governance in exceptional circumstances. However, the potential for misuse and political manipulation has been a persistent issue. The Supreme Court, through landmark rulings like S.R. Bommai, has imposed strict judicial oversight and procedural safeguards to ensure that Article 356 is invoked only when truly necessary, preserving the federal spirit and democratic governance in the States.
RELATED Blog
0 comments