Article 356 of the Indian Constitution outlines provisions that empower the President of India to intervene in a state’s governance if its constitutional machinery fails. This intervention, often referred to as "President's Rule," allows the President to take control of state administration under certain conditions, ensuring the functioning of the state's governance in line with the Constitution's mandates. Article 356 is invoked when the state's government cannot be carried out in accordance with constitutional provisions. Below, we explore this article in depth, along with its clauses, provisions, and the historical amendments that have shaped its application.
1. Circumstances for Invocation of Article 356
Article 356 begins with the conditions under which the President may proclaim President's Rule. If the President, based on a report from the state's Governor or other sources, concludes that the government of a state cannot be carried on as per the Constitution, they may issue a proclamation under this article. This situation could arise due to political turmoil, breakdown of law and order, internal disturbances, or any other reason that leads to the dysfunction of state governance.
Under Article 356(1), the President is empowered to issue a proclamation under the following terms:
Assuming State Functions (Clause a): The President may assume any or all functions of the state government and any powers vested in the Governor or any state authority, excluding the state legislature.
Legislative Powers (Clause b): The President can declare that the powers of the state legislature will be exercised by or under the authority of Parliament.
Incidental and Consequential Provisions (Clause c): The President can make necessary provisions to implement the proclamation effectively, including suspending any parts of the Constitution as they pertain to state bodies or authorities.
However, the President does not have the authority to assume powers vested in a High Court or suspend its constitutional operation.
2. Duration and Parliamentary Approval of President's Rule
Upon issuance, every proclamation under Article 356 must be presented to both Houses of Parliament for approval. Without Parliament's sanction, the proclamation expires after two months. Should the House of the People (Lok Sabha) be dissolved during this period, the approval by the Council of States (Rajya Sabha) can extend the proclamation by 30 days post-reconstitution of the Lok Sabha.
If approved by Parliament, President's Rule can continue for up to six months, after which it must be reviewed and re-approved. Article 356 restricts the imposition of President's Rule beyond a total of three years, unless specific conditions allow for extensions beyond this period.
3. Extending President's Rule Beyond One Year
According to Article 356(5), for President's Rule to remain in force beyond a year, two additional criteria must be satisfied:
- Emergency Declaration: A national or state emergency must be in effect during the extended period.
- Election Commission Certification: The Election Commission must certify that it is impossible to hold elections due to extraordinary circumstances.
If both these conditions are met, Parliament may pass resolutions to extend President’s Rule in the state beyond one year, but not exceeding a total of three years.
4. Key Amendments and Judicial Interpretations
Article 356 has undergone significant amendments, especially to address unique political and social circumstances in specific states. Over time, these amendments have refined the scope of President’s Rule and regulated its application. Some of the most notable amendments and legal interpretations include:
The Thirty-Eighth Amendment (1975): This amendment made the President’s satisfaction regarding the need for President's Rule final and immune from judicial review.
The Forty-Fourth Amendment (1978): This amendment restored judicial review, thereby limiting the misuse of Article 356. It reinforced the importance of state autonomy by enabling courts to examine the validity of the President's satisfaction.
The Forty-Eighth Amendment (1984): This amendment provided a two-year extension for the continuation of President’s Rule in Punjab due to prolonged disturbances.
The Sixty-Fourth and Sixty-Seventh Amendments (1990): Due to ongoing challenges in Punjab, these amendments extended the maximum duration of President’s Rule in the state beyond three years.
The Sixty-Eighth Amendment (1991): This amendment enabled the extension of President's Rule in Punjab for up to five years, considering the severe law and order challenges that hindered the state’s governance.
These amendments underscore Article 356’s flexibility in response to unique challenges while aiming to balance the President's powers with the autonomy of state governments.
5. Judicial Oversight of Article 356
While the Constitution empowers the President to impose President's Rule, the judiciary plays a crucial role in ensuring these powers are exercised judiciously. In the landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, the Supreme Court established guidelines for the imposition of President’s Rule. Key takeaways from the judgment include:
Judicial Review: The Court asserted that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 is not immune from judicial review, which can examine the legitimacy of the grounds for invoking the article.
Constitutional Federalism: The judgment emphasized the importance of federal principles, stating that Article 356 should only be used as a last resort to prevent abuse of power by the central government.
Floor Test Requirement: The Court highlighted that a floor test within the legislative assembly should be the primary method for determining the majority support of a government, rather than relying solely on the Governor’s report.
This ruling has fortified the Constitution’s federal structure by curbing the arbitrary use of Article 356, making it a measure of last resort to protect the state's governance.
6. Implications and Criticisms of Article 356
While Article 356 serves as a constitutional safeguard for state governance, it has faced significant criticism due to perceived misuse. Historically, central governments have been accused of using Article 356 to dissolve state governments led by opposition parties. Critics argue that such misuse undermines democratic principles and disrupts the federal balance. However, the S.R. Bommai judgment and subsequent judicial interpretations have constrained the arbitrary invocation of President’s Rule.
Supporters of Article 356 argue that it is essential for maintaining constitutional order in extreme situations where the state government fails to function in alignment with the Constitution. Article 356, in this view, protects states from complete breakdowns in governance, thereby upholding the rule of law and public order.
Conclusion
Article 356 represents one of the most significant and controversial provisions in the Indian Constitution. It embodies the balance between the autonomy of states and the authority of the central government, providing a means to ensure constitutional governance at the state level when it fails. The President's Rule mechanism has been refined over the years through amendments, judicial pronouncements, and policy changes to prevent misuse and uphold democratic principles.
The historical amendments and Supreme Court interpretations reflect the evolving understanding of federalism and the importance of judicial safeguards. While Article 356 remains a necessary constitutional provision, its usage is guided by checks that prevent its misuse, ensuring that the spirit of India’s federal democracy is preserved.
