Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, often referred to as President’s Rule, is one of the most debated provisions in the Constitution. It allows the Central government to take control of a State’s administration when there is a failure of Constitutional governance. Although it was designed as a safeguard to uphold Constitutional order, its frequent use has raised concerns about political misuse. This article explores the historical background, legal aspects, and major cases associated with President’s Rule, along with suggestions for its reform.
What is Article 356?
Article 356 grants the President of India the power to impose President’s Rule in a State if it is determined that the government of the State cannot function according to Constitutional provisions. This usually happens when there is a report from the Governor of the State or other reliable sources indicating a breakdown in Constitutional machinery. Once President’s Rule is declared, the State government is dismissed, and the Governor, acting on behalf of the President, takes over the administration. Legislative powers of the State are transferred to the Parliament for the duration of the rule.
Historical Background of Article 356
Article 356 has its origins in the Government of India Act, 1935, which allowed the British Governors to take control of provincial administration in the event of governance failure. When the Indian Constitution was drafted, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar included Article 356, hoping it would be used only in extreme situations. Unfortunately, this provision has been invoked more than 125 times since independence, often for political reasons rather than genuine governance crises.
Effects of President’s Rule on a State
When President’s Rule is imposed, the following changes occur in the State:
Dissolution of the Council of Ministers: The Chief Minister and the State Council of Ministers are dismissed, and their powers are transferred to the Governor.
Suspension of the State Legislature: The State Assembly is either dissolved or suspended, and Parliament assumes the responsibility for making laws for the State.
Governance by the Central Government: The Governor, on behalf of the Central government, manages the day-to-day administration of the State. Any laws or ordinances passed during this period remain in effect unless repealed by the new State legislature after President’s Rule is lifted.
Legal Issues and Debates Surrounding Article 356
Article 356 has long been controversial due to its potential for misuse. The term “failure of Constitutional machinery” is vague, which gives the Central government considerable discretionary power to dismiss State governments, particularly those led by opposition parties.
The landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case was instrumental in setting limits on the use of Article 356. The Supreme Court, in its ruling, declared that the President’s decision to impose President’s Rule is subject to judicial review. The Court emphasized that the imposition of President’s Rule should be based on substantial evidence and that the Governor’s report must clearly justify the need for such action. Additionally, the Bommai judgment stressed the importance of conducting a floor test in the State Assembly to determine if the ruling party still holds the majority, rather than relying solely on the Governor’s assessment.
Notable Instances of President’s Rule
Throughout India’s history, Article 356 has been invoked numerous times, often under contentious circumstances:
Indira Gandhi’s Era: During the tenure of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, President’s Rule was imposed 35 times, frequently to dismiss State governments led by opposition parties.
1977 After the Emergency: After the Emergency was lifted in 1977, the Janata Party used Article 356 to dissolve several Congress-led State governments.
Bihar (2005): In the Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) case, the Supreme Court declared the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly unconstitutional. The Central government had dismissed the Assembly based on allegations of horse-trading among legislators, which were unsubstantiated.
Criticism of Article 356
The misuse of Article 356 has often undermined India’s federal structure, allowing the Central government to interfere with the functioning of State governments. The vague language of “Constitutional breakdown” has provided the Central government with too much discretionary power, enabling it to dismiss State governments for political gain.
Various commissions and committees have proposed reforms to prevent the misuse of Article 356:
Sarkaria Commission: This commission, established in the 1980s to study Centre-State relations, recommended that President’s Rule be used only as a last resort. The State government should first be given a chance to correct any issues before it is dismissed.
Punchhi Commission: This commission suggested restricting President’s Rule to specific regions within a State rather than applying it to the entire State. It also recommended reducing the duration of President’s Rule from six months to three months.
The Role of Judicial Review
The S.R. Bommai judgment was a turning point in the legal interpretation of Article 356. It curtailed the arbitrary use of President’s Rule by allowing judicial review of the President’s decisions. The Court introduced the concept of a floor test to determine whether a government has lost its majority in the Assembly. This ruling ensures that a State government cannot be dismissed without concrete and justifiable reasons.
Conclusion
Article 356 was intended as a tool to maintain Constitutional governance, but its history of political misuse has raised concerns about its impact on India’s federal structure. The Supreme Court, through its decisions, especially the S.R. Bommai case, has played a crucial role in limiting the misuse of this provision. However, continued vigilance is necessary to ensure that President’s Rule is applied only in genuine cases of governance failure and not as a political tool. Strengthening the legal framework around Article 356 will help safeguard both Constitutional order and State autonomy as India’s democracy evolves.
