Article 356 of Indian Constitution grants the President power to impose President’s Rule in states facing governance breakdown, ensuring constitutional stability but often misused for political gains.
Article 356 of Indian Constitution has an important role in maintaining the constitutional order within the country. Article 356 of Indian Constitution empowers the President to impose President’s Rule in a state under certain conditions when the state government fails to work according to the given provisions of the Indian Constitution. This article acts as a safeguard so that state governments operate within the structure of the law, controlling any breakdown of governance. By invoking this article, the central government can step in to restore order and uphold democratic principles in circumstances where constitutional machinery in a state collapses.
Provisions of Article 356 of Indian Constitution
Article 356 describes the following provisions:
- Invocation Conditions:
If the President, based on a report given from the Governor of states or otherwise, is satisfied that the state’s government cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, he may issue a proclamation assuming control over the state’s governance.
- Scope of Proclamation:
The President may:
- Assume Functions: Take over all or any of the functions of the state government.
- Legislative Powers: Order that the powers of the state legislature shall be exercisable by the Parliament.
- Essential Measures: Take any other necessary actions by including the suspension of constitutional provisions relating to any authority in the state.
- Duration:
Such a proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within 2 months. Initially, it is valid for 6 months and can be extended, with parliamentary approval, for up to 3 years. Extensions beyond 1 year need:
-
- National Emergency: A national emergency must be in operation in the whole or any part of the state.
- Election Commission Certification: The Election Commission must certify that general elections to the state legislature cannot be conducted.
Landmark Judgments of Article 356 of Indian Constitution
Several landmark judgments have shaped the interpretation of Article 356:
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This case is a foundation in the context of Article 356. The Supreme Court of India stated that the power of the President to reject a state government is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The Court stressed that the breakdown of constitutional machinery should be evident and that the majority of the state government must be tested on the floor of the Assembly. This judgment’s purpose is to stop the misuse of Article 356 for political purposes.
- Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): The Supreme Court of India declared the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly as unconstitutional. The Court stated that the recommendation of the governor which caused the dissolution, was based on subjective assessment without solid evidence of a breakdown in constitutional machinery.
Misuse and Safeguards of Article 356 of Indian Constitution
Historically, Article 356 has been misused for political gains. Between 1966 and 1977, it was invoked multiple times to reject state governments led by opposition parties. The Sarkaria Commission Report of 1988 showed that at least 1/3rd of the impositions of President’s Rule were politically motivated.
To stop the misuse, the Supreme Court of India in the S.R. Bommai case laid down directives, including:
- Judicial Review: The imposition of President’s Rule will go through judicial review.
- Floor Test: The majority of the state government should be tested on the floor of the Assembly.
- Parliamentary Approval: The proclamation of the President must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within 2 months.
Impact on Federalism
The misuse of Article 356 of Indian Constitution has significant implications for India’s federal structure:
- Erosion of State Freedom: Frequent and unjustified impositions of President’s Rule eroded the freedom of state governments, causing the centralization of power.
- Political Instability: Arbitrary dismissals of state governments can cause political instability, harming governance and development.
- Strained Centre-State Relations: Misuse strengthens distrust between the central and state governments, affecting cooperative federalism.
Conclusion
Article 356 of Indian Constitution is an article under which the state governments function in accordance with constitutional mandates. However, its misuse has caused political instability and weakened federalism. Judicial interference, mainly the judgment of S.R. Bommai has introduced protection against arbitrary imposition of the President’s Rule. Moving forward, a balanced and cautious approach is necessary to stop unnecessary imposition of President’s Rule while ensuring effective governance.
FAQs
1.What is Article 356 of Indian Constitution?
Article 356 gives President the power to impose President’s Rule in a state if its governance cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
2.When can President’s Rule be imposed under Article 356?
President’s Rule can be imposed when there is a failure of constitutional machinery in a state as reported by the Governor or otherwise.
3.How long can the President’s Rule last under Article 356 of Indian Constitution ?
Initially, it lasts for 6 months and can be extended up to 3 years with parliamentary approval. Extensions beyond 1 year need certain conditions like a national emergency in operation and Election Commission certification.
4.Is the imposition of the President’s Rule under Article 356 subject to judicial review?
Yes, the Supreme Court of India has stated that the President’s proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
5.What was the importance of the S.R. Bommai case relating to Article 356?
The S.R. Bommai case was a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court of India laid down guidelines to control the misuse of Article 356, stressing that the power of the President to dismiss a state government is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.
Source
