Introduction
The President’s Rule, provided under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, empowers the President of India to assume control over a state’s administration in case of a breakdown of constitutional machinery. This provision allows the Union Government to dismiss a state government and govern the state directly.
Originally intended as an emergency measure, President’s Rule has often been a subject of political controversy, with instances of both justified interventions and blatant misuse. This essay explores the constitutional provisions, historical use, and controversial misuse of Article 356, evaluating its impact on Indian federalism and democracy.
Constitutional Provisions Related to President’s Rule
1. Article 356: Proclamation of President’s Rule
Article 356 states that if the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the President may:
- Assume the functions of the state government and legislature.
- Dismiss the Council of Ministers and dissolve or suspend the state legislature.
- Authorize the Parliament to legislate for the state.
2. Duration of President’s Rule
- Initially imposed for six months.
- Can be extended up to three years, with Parliamentary approval every six months.
- Beyond one year, it requires:
- A national emergency (Article 352) OR
- The Election Commission certifying the impossibility of elections.
3. Article 355: Obligation of the Union to Protect States
Article 355 makes it the duty of the Union to ensure that governance in states follows the constitutional framework. Article 356 derives its legitimacy from this obligation, ensuring that states function as per the Constitution.
Grounds for Imposing President’s Rule
A Governor’s report to the President typically triggers President’s Rule under Article 356. Grounds for its imposition include:
- Failure to Form a Stable Government – No political party secures a majority after elections, leading to political instability.
- Breakdown of Law and Order – Large-scale violence, riots, or internal disturbances that the state government fails to control.
- Failure to Comply with Constitutional Provisions – If the state government violates constitutional provisions or defies central authority.
- Corruption and Maladministration – Serious cases of corruption, failure in governance, or misuse of power by state authorities.
- Defiance of Union Laws – If the state government refuses to implement laws passed by Parliament.
- Delay in Conducting Elections – If a state fails to hold elections within the stipulated time.
🔹 Judicial View: In the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, the Supreme Court ruled that Article 356 cannot be invoked for political reasons and that judicial review applies to President’s Rule.
Instances of Justified Use of President’s Rule
Despite its controversies, President’s Rule has been justified in certain situations where it ensured constitutional governance and stability:
1. Post-Independence Instability (1950s & 1960s)
- President’s Rule was first imposed in Punjab (1951) due to political instability.
- Used in Kerala (1959) to dismiss the E.M.S. Namboodiripad government due to allegations of misgovernance.
2. Punjab Insurgency (1980s-90s)
- President’s Rule was imposed in Punjab (1983-1985) due to the rise of militancy and lawlessness.
- The move was crucial in restoring law and order before elections were held.
3. Jammu & Kashmir (2018-2019)
- Imposed after the PDP-BJP coalition government collapsed, ensuring stability in a politically sensitive region.
🔹 Analysis: In such cases, President’s Rule played a constructive role by preventing constitutional crises and ensuring governance until fresh elections could be held.
Misuse of President’s Rule in Indian Politics
Despite its constitutional intent, Article 356 has been misused for political reasons, particularly by the ruling party at the Centre to dismiss opposition-led state governments.
1. Jawaharlal Nehru Era (1950s-60s)
- Nehru’s government imposed President’s Rule 6 times.
- Kerala (1959) – The first major misuse, when the Congress-led Centre dismissed a democratically elected Communist government.
2. Indira Gandhi’s Era (1966-77, 1980-84)
- Indira Gandhi misused Article 356 more than any other Prime Minister.
- Imposed 39 times, mostly to remove opposition-led governments.
- Gujarat (1974) & Tamil Nadu (1976) – Congress dismissed non-Congress governments.
- During the Emergency (1975-77) – Several state governments were dismissed arbitrarily.
3. Janata Party and Rajiv Gandhi’s Tenure (1977-89)
- Morarji Desai’s government (1977) dismissed 9 Congress-led state governments after the Emergency.
- Rajiv Gandhi (1984-89) continued the trend, imposing President’s Rule 7 times.
4. 1990s: Increasing Judicial Scrutiny
- S.R. Bommai Case (1994): Supreme Court ruled that judicial review applies to Article 356, curbing its misuse.
- Bihar (1999) – Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s government imposed President’s Rule despite the Governor’s recommendation against it.
5. Recent Cases (2000s & Beyond)
- Uttarakhand (2016) – President’s Rule was imposed but later revoked by the Supreme Court, terming it unconstitutional.
- Arunachal Pradesh (2016) – Dismissal of a Congress-led government, leading to legal challenges.
🔹 Analysis: Most cases of President’s Rule before the 1990s were politically motivated. However, judicial intervention has significantly reduced arbitrary dismissals in recent years.
Impact of President’s Rule on Indian Federalism
- Threat to State Autonomy – Misuse of Article 356 undermines state governments, weakening federalism.
- Political Centralization – The Centre can override opposition-led states, affecting democratic balance.
- Judicial Checks – Supreme Court rulings have restricted arbitrary use, ensuring constitutional safeguards.
- Need for Electoral Reforms – Better mechanisms are required to prevent political abuse of Article 356.
Judicial Safeguards Against Misuse
The S.R. Bommai case (1994) established key guidelines to prevent misuse:
- Judicial Review: Courts can examine the validity of President’s Rule.
- Floor Test: A floor test in the Assembly must be conducted before dismissing a government.
- Restrictions on Political Use: President’s Rule cannot be used for ideological or political reasons.
🔹 Significance: This case has reduced arbitrary dismissals and ensured greater accountability.
Reforms to Prevent Misuse
- Stronger Governor’s Role – Governors should act independently, not as political agents.
- Mandatory Judicial Review – Automatic Supreme Court review before imposing President’s Rule.
- Clearer Legislative Framework – Define specific conditions for using Article 356.
- Time-Bound Elections – Elections should be conducted within 3 months of dismissal.
🔹 Need for Reform: Despite improvements, political interference remains a challenge, and further reforms are necessary to protect democracy and federalism.
Conclusion
While President’s Rule under Article 356 is necessary in cases of constitutional crises, its history of misuse has weakened federalism in India. The S.R. Bommai judgment and judicial interventions have curtailed arbitrary dismissals, but political misuse still persists. Strengthening constitutional safeguards and judicial oversight is essential to ensure that Article 356 remains a tool for governance, not political manipulation.
