Article 356

Subject : Polity

Section :Federalism

Concept :

Prime Minister Narendra Modi recalled in Rajya Sabha that Congress governments at the Centre had dismissed 90 state governments by “misusing” Article 356 of the Constitution, and that former PM Indira Gandhi had “misused” it 50 times to dismiss elected state governments.

Article 356 of the Constitution

Article 356 of the Constitution of India gives President of India the power to suspend state government and impose President’s rule of any state in the country “if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”.
Whether the constitutional machinery has broken down may be determined by the President at any time, either upon receipt of a report from the Governor, or suo motu.
It is also known as ‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency’.

Origin of the article

Article 356 was inspired by Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935.
This provided that if a Governor of a province was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the government of the province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, he could assume to himself all or any of the powers of the government and discharge those functions in his discretion.
The Governor, however, could not encroach upon the powers of the high court.

Implications:

Upon the imposition of this rule, there would be no Council of Ministers.
Imposition of president rule, does not dissolves the legislature of the state automatically as in the case of the council of ministers.
The state will fall under the direct control of the Union government, and the Governor will continue to head the proceedings, representing the President of India.

Parliamentary Approval and Duration:

A proclamation imposing President’s Rule must be approved by both the Houses of Parliament within two months from the date of its issue.
The approval takes place through simple majority in either House, that is, a majority of the members of the House present and voting.
Initially valid for six months, the President’s Rule can be extended for a maximum period of three years with the approval of the Parliament, every six months.

Report of the Governor:

Under Article 356, President’s Rule is imposed if the President, upon receipt of the report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

Revocation:

A proclamation of President’s Rule may be revoked by the President at any time by a subsequent proclamation.
Such a proclamation does not require parliamentary approval.

Article 356 And Its Misuse

Even though B.R. Ambedkar had assured that it would remain a dead letter, Article 356 has been used/misused more than 125 times.
In almost all cases it was used for political considerations rather than any genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery in the States.
Until 1959, Jawaharlal Nehru’s government had used the article six times, including to dislodge the first-ever elected communist government in the world, in Kerala in 1959.
In the 1960s, it was used 11 times. After Indira came to power in 1966, Article 356 was used seven times between 1967 and 1969 alone.
The 1970s were more politically turbulent. Between 1970 and 1974, President’s Rule was imposed 19 times. Post Emergency, the Janata Party government used it in 1977 to summarily dismiss nine Congress state governments.
When Indira returned to power in 1980, her government too imposed President’s Rule in nine states.
In 1992-93, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao dismissed three BJP governments in the wake of the demolition of Babri Masjid, besides Kalyan Singh’s government in UP.

Article 356 And Safeguards

The 1994 Supreme Court (S.R. Bommai case) majority decision, in essence, overturned a long tradition that the use of Article 356 was not really subject to judicial review.
The Bommai case verdict laid down the conditions under which State governments may be dismissed, and mechanisms for that process.
In the R. Bommai case, a nine-member bench of the Supreme Court construed the scope of Article 356, which also allows the imposition of President’s Rule in the States, with stringent conditions.
The court held that Article 356 can be invoked in situations of the physical breakdown of the government or when there is a ‘hung assembly’, but that it cannot be used without giving the state government a chance to either prove its majority in the House or without instances of a violent breakdown of the constitutional machinery.
These included ascertaining whether objective conditions exist which render it impossible to carry out governance in the State where the proclamation has been made and the process has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before consideration for judicial review.
Since the judgment, the arbitrary use of Article 356 has been largely controlled.