Law and You > Constitutional Law > State Emergency or President’s Rule (Articles 356 and 357)

Article 356 of the Indian constitution provides for imposition of President’s rule in states, provided the President is satisfied that the governance in states cannot be carried out in accordance to the constitution. In other words, it is supposed to be used sparingly when no party/alliance is able to form a government or a government has lost majority in the house or if there is a widespread breakdown of law and order. The president usually acts on the advice of the union cabinet. In this article, we shall discuss state emergency or President’s rule under Article 356 of the Constitution.

Chapter XVIII of the Constitution deals with the powers of the president to act in an emergency, whereby the security of India (or any part thereof) is threatened. This part has been the subject of most acrimonious attacks by the critics in the history of Independent India. During the framing of the constitution, this part had witnessed the most agitated scenes and debates in the Constituent assembly. The definition of ’emergency’ is left to the president, but it is clear that apart from external aggression and internal disturbance, it also includes economic depression and financial crisis. Emergency provisions in India are borrowed from Weimar Constitution of Germany.

The Indian Constitution gives President the authority to declare three types of emergencies. These are-

• National Emergency (Article 352)
• State Emergency (Article 356)
• Financial Emergency (Article 360)

Over the years since independence, article 356 was used when different political parties/alliances were in power at the center. According to an RTI response from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), President’s rule was imposed 115 times till 2016. The indiscriminate use of article 356 has come down following the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the SR Bommai case. President’s rule was imposed maximum number of times in Uttar Pradesh (10 times) while President’s rule was in vogue for maximum number of days in Punjab (more than 3000 days). Congress was in power at the center when President’s rule was imposed 84 times, which is more than 73% of all the occasions.

Under Article 355, duty is imposed on the centre to ensure that the government of every state was carried in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. Accordingly, if there is a failure of constitutional machinery in a state, the centre can take over the state government under Article 356. This is known as State Emergency/ President’s Rule. State Emergency can be declared on two grounds: (1) Constitutional Machinery breakdown and (2) Non-compliance with centre’s directions. Article 356 and 357 provide for meeting a situation arising from the failure of the Constitutional machinery in a state.

Article 356:

Proclamation of State Emergency:

Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State

1. If the President, on receipt of 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 this Constitution, the President may be Proclamation:- (a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State; (b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament; (c) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the president to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this constitution relating to any body or authority in the State Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorise the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to High Courts
2. Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation
3. Every Proclamation issued under this article except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation Shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People
4. A Proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of issue of the Proclamation: Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a Proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of six months from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to operating, but no such Proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than three years: Provided further that if the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during any such period of six months and a resolution approving the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People during the said period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the continuance in force of the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People
5. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause ( 4 ), a resolution with respect to the continuance in force of a Proclamation approved under clause ( 3 ) for any period beyond the expiration of one year from the date of issue of such proclamation shall not be passed by either House of Parliament unless:- (a) a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, in the whole of India or, as the case may be, in the whole or any part of the State, at the time of the passing of such resolution, and (b) the Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of the Proclamation approved under clause ( 3 ) during the period specified in such resolution is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned: Provided that in the case of the Proclamation issued under clause ( 1 ) on the 6 th day of October, 1985 with respect to the State of Punjab, the reference in this clause to any period beyond the expiration of two years

Amendments:

• 42nd Constitution Amendment Act, 1976 extended the period of state emergency from 6 months to 1 year.
• 44th Constitution Amendment Act, 1978 reverted back the operation of state emergency to 6 months. Further, it divided the maximum period of 3 years of operation into 1 year under ordinary circumstances and 2 years under extraordinary circumstances, for which the stipulated conditions shall have to be satisfied.

Invocation of State Emergency or President’s Rule:

Meaning of the Phrase ‘Failure of Constitutional machinery in State’:

The phrase, “the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution” in Art. 356(1) has indefinite connotations. Failure of the Constitutional machinery in a State may arise because of various factors; some situations of the breakdown of the Constitutional machinery may be as follows:

• No party in the Assembly has a majority in the State Legislative Assembly to be able to form the government. Commonly called ‘Hung Assembly’.
• Where the party having the majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry and the governor cannot find a coalition ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
• A government in office loses its majority in assembly due to defections or removal of support from coalition partners, and no alternative government can be formed.
• A government may have majority support in the House, but it may function in a manner subversive of the Constitution. As for example, it may promote fissiparous tendencies in the State.
• The State Government does not comply with the directions issued by the Centre Government under various Constitutional provisions and the law or is fomenting a violent revolt.
• Physical breakdown where the government wilfully refuses to discharge its constitutional obligations endangering the security of the state.
• It may be debatable whether Art. 356(1) can be invoked when there are serious allegations of corruption against the Chief Minister and the Ministers in a State.

It is the duty of the Union Government to ensure that governance of a State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Under Article 356, the President may issue a proclamation to impose emergency in a state if he is satisfied on receipt of a report from the Governor of the State, or otherwise, that a situation has arisen under which the Government of the State cannot be carried on smoothly. In such a situation, proclamation of emergency by the President is called ‘proclamation on account of the failure (or breakdown) of constitutional machinery.’ In popular language it is called the President’s Rule or State Emergency.

As it is well known, in Parliamentary form of Government, real executive power vests in the Cabinet, not in the President. The President is nominal head and is bound to act in accordance with the decision of the Council of Ministers. This political philosophy is enshrined in article 74 (1) according to which “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice.” It is the reason that President is not authorised to take individual decision. Thus, it is to be noted that the word “satisfaction” in Article 356(1) does not mean the personal satisfaction of the Governor but it is the satisfaction of the cabinet. The satisfaction of the President can, however, be challenged.

In the State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361 case, the Court held that the scope for judicial review of the Presidential satisfaction was evolved on the grounds:

• Where the order was malafide, or
• Where the authority passing the order took into account extraneous or irrelevant consideration, or
• Where the authority passing the order failed to take into account relevant considerations.

Revocation of State Emergency:

The Proclamation issued under Article 356 (1) may be revoked or varied by the President by a subsequent Proclamation.

A Proclamation of Emergency shall on its own cease to operate on the expiration of the period for which the Proclamation has been approved by the Houses of Parliament. President shall revoke the Proclamation of Emergency, if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution by a special sitting held for this purpose.

Approval of State Emergency:

According to Article 356(3) of the Constitution of India, a proclamation issued under Article 356 shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall remain in operation for ‘two months’ unless before the expiry of that period it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament

Duration of State Emergency:

Without Approval:

Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation. If any such Proclamation is issued at the time when Lok Sabha is dissolved or the dissolution takes place during the period of two months and the Proclamation is passed by the Rajya Sabha but not passed by the Lok Sabha, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiry of 30 days from the date on which the new Lok Sabha meets after the reconstruction unless before the expiry of 30 days it has been also passed by the Lok Sabha.

With Approval:

 If the Proclamation is approved by the Parliament it will remain in operation of “six months”. Parliament may extend the duration of Proclamation for “six months” at a time but no such Proclamation shall, in any case, remain in force for more than three years.

However, emergency in a State can be extended beyond one year if

(a) a National Emergency is already in operation; or if

(b) the Election Commission certifies that the election to the State Assembly cannot be held.

Effects of President Rule (State Emergency):

Article 357:

Exercise of legislative powers under Proclamation issued under Article 356:

(1) Whereby a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of Article 356, it has been declared that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament, it shall be competent

(a) for Parliament to confer on the President the power of the Legislature of the State to make laws, and to authorise the President to delegate, subject to such conditions as he may think fit to impose, the power so conferred to any other authority to be specified by him in that behalf;

(b) for Parliament, or for the President or other authority in whom such power to make laws is vested under sub clause (a), to make laws conferring powers and imposing duties, or authorising the conferring of powers and the imposition of duties, upon the Union or officers and authorities thereof;

(c) for the President to authorise when the House of the People is not in session expenditure from the Consolidated Fund of the State pending the sanction of such expenditure by Parliament

(2) Any law made in exercise of the power of the Legislature of the State by Parliament or the President or other authority referred to in sub clause (a) of clause (1) which Parliament or the President or such other authority would not, but for the issue of a Proclamation under Article 356, have been competent to make shall, after the Proclamation has ceased to operate, continue in force until altered or repealed or amended by a competent Legislature or other authority.

The declaration of emergency due to the breakdown of Constitutional machinery in a State has the following effects:

(i) The President can assume to himself all or any of the functions of the State Government or he may vest all or any of those functions with the Governor or any other executive authority.

(ii) The President may dissolve the State Legislative Assembly or put it under suspension. He may authorise the Parliament to make laws on behalf of the State Legislature.

(iii) The President can make any other incidental or consequential provision necessary to give effect to the object of proclamation.

• Effect On Executive: State government is dismissed and the executive power of the state is exercised by the centre.
• Effect On Legislature: State legislature does not function to legislate; state legislative assembly is either suspended or dissolved.
• Effect On Financial Relations: There is no impact on the distribution of financial resources between centre and the state.

Some Major Instances of Use of State Emergency:

This type of emergency has been imposed in most of the States at one time or the other for a number of times. In most of the cases there was no failure of Constitutional machinery, but actions were taken only on political grounds.

• It was in 1951 that this type of emergency was imposed for the first time in the Punjab State (Congress Government at Centre).
• In 1957, the Kerala State was put under the President’s Rule (Congress Government at Centre).
• In 1977, nine State governments where Congress was still in power were dismissed (Janata Party Government at Centre)
• In 1980 (after Janata Government had lost power) Congress came back to power at the Centre under Mrs. Gandhi’s leadership and dismissed all the then Janata Party State Governments.
• In 1986, emergency was imposed in Jammu and Kashmir due to terrorism and insurgency.
• Article 356 has been invoked in the State of Uttar Pradesh because it did not appear to be feasible to form a stable government.  In the general elections held for the State Legislature, the public gave a fragmented verdict with no party having a majority in the House; and no party wanted to support any other party to form the government. The leader of the Samajwadi Party Shri Mulayam Singh (with 145 MLAs far from 202, the number required for a simple majority) staked his claim as the single largest party to form the government. He claimed that he would prove his majority on the floor of the House. Implicit in the statement was the fact that being in power, it would be easier for him to engineer defections from the other parties. The Governor was not satisfied with his claim. On the recommendation of the State Governor Shri Vishnu Kant Shastri, the Central Government imposed the President’s rule in the State on March 9, 2002. This is an instance of President’s rule being invoked in a State because it was not possible to form a viable government in the State due to the politically fragmented legislature
• S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal government in Karnataka between August 13, 1988, and April 21, 1989. His government was dismissed on April 21, 1989, under Article 356 of the Constitution and President’s Rule was imposed, in what was then a most common mode to keep opposition parties at bay. The dismissal was on grounds that the Bommai government had lost majority following large-scale defections engineered by several party leaders of the day. Then Governor P. Venkatasubbaiah refused to give Bommai an opportunity to test his majority in the Assembly despite the latter presenting him with a copy of the resolution passed by the Janata Dal Legislature Party. The Governor recommended President’s rule in the State. Bommai went to court against the Governor’s decision to recommend President’s Rule and the Court held that the dismissal of Bommai Government is illegal.
• However, after 1995 the use of this provision has rarely been made.

Misuse of Provision of State Emergency:

There have been many cases of misuse of ‘constitutional breakdown’

• The most important examples of such misuse included dismissal of the first government led by the communist leader E.M.S. Nampoodaripad in Kerala in 1957. It was the first instance of dismissal of an elected government by using emergency provisions in India.
• In 1977 when Janata Party came into power at the Centre, the Congress Party was almost wiped out in North Indian States. On this excuse, Desai Government at the Centre dismissed nine State governments where Congress was still in power. This action of Morarji Desai’s Janata Government was strongly criticised by the Congress and others.
• When in 1980 (after Janata Government had lost power) Congress came back to power at the Centre under Mrs. Gandhi’s leadership and dismissed all the then Janata Party State Governments.

Comparing Articles 352 and 356:

Article 352	Article 356
It deals with national emergency	It deals with state emergency or President’s rule.
Under this article, emergency can be proclaimed by the President when the security of India or a part of it is threatened by War External aggression or Armed rebellion	Under this Article the President can issue a proclamation if he is satisfied that the govt in a state cannot be carried out in accordance with the Constitution. He can act with or without the governor’s report
Emergency under Article 352 must be approved by both the houses of the Parliament by a special majority.	Emergency under Article 356 must be approved by both the houses of the Parliament by a simple majority.
Proclamation imposing National Emergency must be approved by both houses of the Parliament within 1 month from the date of its issue.	Proclamation imposing President’s rule must be approved by both houses of the Parliament within 2 months from the date of its issue.
National emergency can be extended to an indefinite period with Parliamentary approvalevery 6 months	President’s rule can be extended to a maximum period of 3 years with Parliamentary approval every 6 months
Centre gets concurrent powers of administration and legislation in the state. State legislations work normally.	State executive is dismissed and the state legislature is either suspended or dissolved. Parliament makes laws for the state. Executive & Legislative powers of the state are assumed by the Centre.
Art. 352 affects the Fundamental Rights whereas	Art. 356 does not affect the Fundamental Rights.
Under Art. 352, the relationship of all the States with the Centre undergoes a change,	Under Art. 356 the relationship of only one state with the Centre is affected.

Case Laws:

Bijayanand Patnaik v. President Of India, AIR 1974 Ori 52

In this case, where the government of Nandini Satpathy fell in 1973 because of defections from the Congress Party. At that time, Bijayanand Patnaik, the leader of the Pragati Party commanded a strength of 70 in a House of 140. The governor however did not invite Bijayanand to form the government. The governor was of the view that political defection in the state had become common and had adversely affected the political life of the State. The Governor believed that government formed by Bijayanand would not remain in office for long and be stable. He therefore recommended to the Centre that the President’s rule be brought into operation. Bijayanand and his colleagues in the Pragati Party challenged the President’s proclamation in the Orissa High Court.

The High Court rejected the challenge and held that in sending his report to the President under Art. 356, the Governor is to act directly and not with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. Whether the Governor’s report is mala fide or based on any extraneous facts cannot be questioned in a Court of Law. It is not justiciable as against the Governor because of the protection and immunity under Art. 361(1).

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India AIR 1977 SC 1361

In this case, where a constitutional controversy of great significance under Art. 356 was raised in this case, when the general elections for Lok Sabha were held in the country in 1977, after the lifting of the emergency of 1975 the Congress Party was badly routed in several States by the Janata Party which won a large number of seats in the Lok Sabha and, thus, formed the Government at the Centre. In several of these States, Congress Governments were functioning at the time and they still had time to complete their terms. The Central Home Minister, Charan Singh wrote a letter to each of the Chief Ministers of these States suggesting that he should seek dissolution of the State Legislature from the governor and obtain fresh mandate from the electorate. The State of Rajasthan along with several other states filed an Original suit in the Supreme Court against the Union of India under Art. 131 praying the Court to declare this directive of the Home Minister as unconstitutional and illegal. It was argued that the letter in question was a prelude to the invocation of Art. 356 in these States and that the dissolution of the State Legislatures on the ground mentioned in the letter was prime facie outside the purview of the Art. 356. Hence that the court had the jurisdiction to entertain the question. The Supreme Court, however dismissed the suit unanimously. The broad position adopted by the Court was that it could not interfere with the Centre’s exercise of power under Art. 356 merely on the ground that it embraced ‘political and executive policy and expediency unless some constitutional provisions was being infringed.’ Art. 74(2) disables the Court to question the contents of the ministerial advice given to the President. Art. 356(5) makes it impossible for the Centre to question the President’s satisfaction on any ground unless and until resort to Art. 356 in a particular situation is shown to be grossly perverse and unreasonable as to continue an excess of power.

S R Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1918

In this case, the Supreme Court had laid down guidelines regarding the use of Art.356.

• The Presidential proclamation dissolving a State Legislative Assembly is subject to judicial review
• If President’s rule is imposed only by political consideration the court can even restore the assembly
• The Supreme Court or High court can compel the Union Government to disclose material on whose basis the President’s rule is imposed on a state.
• The power of President under Art.356 is Constitutional power and the existence of material is a pre-condition to form the satisfaction to impose the President’s rule.
• State assembly can be dissolved only after the parliament approves the President’s rule

Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 980

In this case, the power under article 356 was exercised on 26th January 2016 in the State of Arunachal Pradesh to topple an elected government (Nabam Tuki government) for political consideration. The Court reiterated that the Court can revive the Legislative Assembly whether kept in suspended animation or dissolved and restore the dismissed government it strikes down the proclamation issued under article 356. Thus, the government was restored by the Supreme Court. This judgement can be said unprecedented because, the government was restored despite of the fact that there was a successor government (Khalikho government) in place. (Nabam Rabia and Others v. Deputy Speaker and Others, Supreme Court July 13, 2016)

Harish Chandra Singh Rawat v. Union of India, Uttarakhand high court April 21, 2016

In this case, where the presidential rule was imposed on the 27th March 2016 to topple the State government headed by Harish Rawat without giving opportunity to prove majority while the outgoing Chief Minister was ready to prove his strength. The Presidential proclamation was challenged by the outgoing Chief Minister in the Uttarakhand high court. A Division Bench of the high court quashed the proclamation on the 21st April 2016 and restored the dismissed government in view of ruling of the Bommai Case. Since, the petitioner was obliged to seek the vote of confidence on the date of proclamation, the Court also directed him to seek it on the 29th April.

The decision was challenged by Union in the Supreme Court by Petition for special leave to Appeal No. 11567/2016. On the 6th May, the Court ordered a floor test to be held on the 10th May for the outgoing Chief Minister to prove his majority under the supervision of the Court. The floor test was held accordingly and on the perusal of the result of the voting, the Court found that the outgoing Chief Minister had obtained majority. Consequently, the presidential rule was revoked on the 11th May and Rawat government was restored.

Recommendations by Different Commissions:

Recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission:

Many times, there exists a persistent tensions between the centre and the states. In response to that, the Ministry of Home Affairs of India on 9th June 1983 established a Commission to investigate and give recommendations on the relationship between the centre and the states. The commission consisted of retired Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria as chairman, and Shri B. Sivaraman and Dr. S.R. Sen as members. The Commission was formed to review the working of the existing arrangements between the Union and the States in the changed socio-economic scenario.The Commission recommended 8 safeguards in order to prevent abuse of the power conferred by the article 356. The following are the recommended safeguards:

(1) Article 356 should be invoked very sparingly as a measure of last resort when all available alternatives fail to prevent or rectify a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the State.

(2) A warning should be issued to the errant State that it is not carrying on the government of the State in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. However, this may not be possible in a situation when denial of immediate action would lead to disastrous consequences.

(3) When an external aggression or internal disturbance paralyses the State administration creating a situation drifting towards a potential breakdown of the constitutional machinery of the State, all alternative courses for discharging paramount responsibility under article 355 should be exhausted to contain the situation.

(4) (a) In a situation of political breakdown, the Governor should explore all possibilities of having a government enjoying majority support. If installation of such a government is not possible and fresh elections can be held without avoidable delay, he should ask the outgoing ministry, if there is one, to continue as a caretaker government. But, this guideline is applicable only when the ministry was defeated solely on a major policy issue, unconnected with any allegations of mal-administration or corruption and is agreeable to continue. He should then dissolve the Assembly.

(4) (b) If the ingredients described above are absent, it would not be proper for the Governor to dissolve the assembly and install a caretaker government. He should recommend Presidential rule without dissolving the Assembly.

(5) Every proclamation should be placed before each house of Parliament at the earliest, in any case before the expiry of two month period contemplated in cl. (3) of article 356.

(6) The Governor’s report should be a speaking document containing a precise and clear statement of all material facts and grounds on the basis of which the President may satisfy himself as to the existence or otherwise of the situation contemplated in article 356.

(7) The Governor’s report should be given wide publicity in all the media and in full.

(8) Normally, the Presidential rule should be issued on the basis of the Governor’s report under article 356 (1).

The Commission also recommended following 4 amendments to be made in the article 356:

(1) The Assembly should not be dissolved either by the Governor or the President before the proclamation issued under article 356 (1) has been laid before Parliament and it has had an opportunity to consider it. Article 356 should be suitably amended to ensure this.

(2) Safeguards corresponding to cls. (7) and (8) of article 352 dealing with the provision that the President shall revoke a proclamation of emergency issued under cl. (1) or any proclamation varying it if the Lok Sabha passes a resolution disapproving the proclamation or continuance of such proclamation and procedure thereof should be incorporated in article 356 to enable Parliament to review the continuance of a proclamation.

(3) To make the remedy of judicial review on the ground of mala-fides a little more meaningful, it should be provided through an appropriate amendment that the material facts and grounds on which article 356 (1) is invoked should be made an integral part of the proclamation notwithstanding anything in cl. (2) of article 74.

(4) The word ‘and’ occurring between sub-clauses (a) and (b) in cl. (5) of article 356 should be substituted by ‘or.’

Recommendations of the Venkatachaliah Commission:

The National Commission to review the working of the Constitution (NCRWC) also known as Justice Manepalli Narayana Rao Venkatachaliah Commission was set up on 22 February 2000 for suggesting possible amendments to the Constitution of India. It submitted its report in 2002. The Venkatachaliah Commission has recommended 6 safeguards in order to prevent abuse of the power conferred by the article. The following are the safeguards:

(1) Article 356 must be used sparingly only as a remedy of the last resort.

(2) In case of political breakdown, the concerned State should be given an opportunity to explain its position and redress the situation before invoking article 356 unless the situation is such that following the above course would not be in the interest of security of State, or defense of the country, or for other reasons necessitating urgent action.

(3) The question whether the ministry in a State has lost the confidence of the Assembly or not, should be decided only on the floor of the Assembly and nowhere else.

(4) The Governor should not be allowed to dismiss the ministry so long as it enjoys the confidence of the House. The Governor can dismiss it only when a Chief Minister refuses to resign after it is defeated on a motion of no-confidence.

(5) In a situation of political breakdown, the Governor should explore all possibilities of having a government enjoying majority support in the Assembly. If installation of such a government is not possible and fresh elections can be held without avoidable delay, the Governor should ask the outgoing ministry to continue as a caretaker government, provided the ministry was defeated solely on an issue unconnected with any allegations of mal-administration or corruption and is agreeable to continue. He should then dissolve, the Assembly.

(6) The Governor’s report should be a speaking document containing a precise and clear statement of all material facts and grounds on the basis of which the President may satisfy himself as to the existence or otherwise of the situation contemplated in article 356.

It is worth mentioning here that four safeguards out of six- (1), (2), (5) and (6) have also been recommended by the Sarkaria Commission.

The Commission also recommended 3 amendments to be made in article 356:

(1) The word ‘and’ between sub-clause (a) and (b) of clause (5) of article 356 should be substituted by ‘or’ so that Presidential rule may be continued if elections cannot be held even without the State being under a Proclamation of Emergency.

(2) Clauses (6) and (7) under article 356 may be added on the line of clauses (7) and (8) of article 352 in order to review the continuance of the proclamation and to restore the democratic process earlier than the expiry of the stipulated period.

(3) Article 356 should be amended to ensure that the Assembly should not be dissolved either by the Governor or the President before the proclamation issued under the article has been laid before Parliament and it has had an opportunity to consider it.

All the aforesaid amendments have also been recommended by the Sarkaria Commission.

Recommendations of Punchhi Commission:

The Central Government constituted the Punchhi Commission in 2007 to examine centre-state relations, along with the possibility of giving sweeping powers to the centre for suo moto deployment of Central forces in states and investigation of crimes affecting national security. It was chaired by the former Chief Justice of India, M.M. Punchhi. It submitted its recommendation in 2009. 

The Punchhi Commission referred recommendations of Commissions constituted previously and guidelines laid down in the Bommai Case in its report and recommended that the provisions of articles 352 and 356 should be used as a measure of last resort. The Commission further recommended a constitutional or legal framework to deal with the situations which require Central intervention without invoking the extreme steps under articles 352 and 356. The Commission termed this kind of situation as “Localised Emergency” for which the constitutional or legal framework would ensure that the State government can continue to function and the assembly would not be dissolved while providing a mechanism to let the Central government respond to the issue specifically and locally.

The Commission also recommended suitable amendments in the Constitution to incorporate the guide-lines laid down by the Supreme Court in Bommai Case.

Conclusion:

Imposition of President’s rule in the state has often been criticized for being misused by central government to exercise control over the state administration. Inspite of the 44^th Amendment, it has often been alleged that the central governments have often misused Article 356 to dismiss opposition governments and impose President rule. Since 1994 imposition of President’s rule has become less frequent. It has happened due to the court’s ruling in the Bommai Case: According to the Bommai case imposition of president rule in a state has to be approved by both houses of parliament. It has made misuse of Article 356 difficult.

The Sarkaria Commission which was appointed to review the Centre–State relations also recommended that Article 356 should be used only as a last resort. The Commission also suggested that the State Legislative Assembly should not be dissolved unless the proclamation is approved by the Parliament. It further suggested that all possibilities of forming an alternative government should be fully explored before the Centre imposes emergency in a State on grounds of breakdown of Constitutional machinery. The Supreme Court held in the Bommai case that the Assembly may not be dissolved till the Proclamation is approved by the Parliament. On a few occasions such as when Gujral Government recommended use of Article 356 in Uttar Pradesh, the President returned the recommendation for reconsideration. The Union Government took the hint and dropped the proposal.

For More Articles on Constitutional Law Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here