President Rule in India

Why in News?

Recently, President Rule was imposed in Manipur for the 11th time following the resignation of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh. The decision was taken due to prolonged violence, administrative instability, and the deteriorating law-and-order situation in the state.

Concept of President Rule

President’s Rule is a situation where the central government directly takes control of a state by dissolving the state government. This is implemented under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution.

• President’s Rule is imposed when the Governor believes that the state government is not functioning as per the Constitution or when a constitutional crisis arises in the state.
• Based on the Governor’s report, the President decides whether to impose President’s Rule in the state. It is also referred to as “State Emergency” or “Constitutional Emergency.”
• To impose President’s Rule, the President issues a proclamation stating that the state government has been dissolved and the central government will now administer the state. 
• This means that the central government gains direct control over the state, and the Governor becomes the constitutional head of that state during the period of President’s Rule.

Constitutional Basis of President’s Rule

The Indian Constitution provides specific provisions to maintain the federal structure and ensure constitutional governance in states. The legal basis for President’s Rule is primarily derived from Articles 355, 356, 357, and 365 of the Constitution.

• Article 355: This article gives the Union Government the authority to protect the sovereignty and integrity of every state in India. It mandates the central government to ensure that governance in all states is in accordance with constitutional provisions. If situations such as internal disturbance arise in a state, the central government has the right to intervene.
• Article 356: This article grants the President the power to impose President’s Rule in a state if they are satisfied that the state government is unable to function in accordance with the Constitution. Under this provision:
  • The Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers can be dismissed.
  • The Governor administers the state on behalf of the President.
  • The State Legislature can be suspended or dissolved.
• Article 357: When President’s Rule is in force, the Parliament assumes the legislative powers of the state. If the state legislature is dissolved, Parliament can make laws and exercise financial powers related to the state. The central government, through the Governor, can also issue administrative directives as necessary.
• Article 365: This article states that if a state government fails to comply with the constitutional directions given by the Union Government, it will be deemed that the state is not operating in accordance with the Constitution. In such a situation, the President has the authority to impose President’s Rule under Article 356. This provision ensures that state governments follow the directives of the Union Government.

Reasons for Imposing President’s Rule

There are several reasons why President’s Rule may be imposed in India. Some of the key reasons include:

• Failure of the Constitutional Machinery: President’s Rule can be imposed when the constitutional machinery fails in a state. This occurs when: The state government does not function as per the Constitution. 
• Political Instability: Political instability in a state can lead to the imposition of President’s Rule. This can happen in the following situations:
  • There are frequent changes in government, leading to instability.
  • If, after elections, no party secures a clear majority, and no government can be formed within the Governor’s deadline.
  • If a coalition government collapses, and the Chief Minister loses majority support in the assembly.
  • If a vote of no confidence leads to the government losing its majority.
• Natural Disasters and Emergencies: In some cases, President’s Rule can be imposed due to extraordinary circumstances, such as: Natural disasters, including floods, earthquakes, or cyclones. Epidemics or pandemics that make it impossible to hold elections. War or external threats that disrupt governance.

Process of Imposing President’s Rule

The imposition of President’s Rule follows a constitutional process that begins with the Governor’s report and ends with Parliament’s approval. The key steps are:

• Governor’s Report: When the state government is unable to function as per constitutional provisions, the Governor submits a report to the President. The report outlines the political instability, law and order issues, or other reasons that justify the imposition of President’s Rule. However, a Governor’s report is not mandatory—the President can impose President’s Rule based on other sources of information as well.
• President’s Satisfaction: If the President is satisfied that governance in the state cannot continue as per the Constitution, they issue a Proclamation under Article 356. Following this, the state government is either suspended or dissolved, and the administration is taken over by the Governor, acting on behalf of the central government.
• Parliamentary Approval: After the President’s Rule is imposed, it must be approved by Parliament within two months. Both Lok Sabha (House of the People) and Rajya Sabha (Council of States) must pass a resolution by a simple majority to approve the proclamation. Once approved, the President’s Rule can continue for six months.

Duration and Termination of President’s Rule

• Initial Duration: Under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, President’s Rule is initially imposed for a maximum period of six months. If the constitutional crisis continues, the duration can be extended every six months, subject to parliamentary approval, for a maximum period of three years.
• Extension Beyond One Year: The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 introduced stricter conditions for extending the President’s Rule beyond one year. The following conditions must be met:
• Election Commission’s Certification: The Election Commission must certify that conducting elections in the concerned state is not feasible. If the Election Commission states that elections cannot be held, the President’s Rule can be extended.
• National Emergency (Article 352): If a National Emergency is in effect in the entire state or a part of it, President’s Rule can be extended beyond one year.
• If the National Emergency is lifted and the Election Commission is ready to conduct elections, President’s Rule must be revoked before the completion of three years.
• Termination: President’s Rule can be revoked at any time by the President through a new proclamation. This does not require parliamentary approval. Once a new government is formed in the state, the President’s Rule automatically comes to an end.

Administrative Arrangements During President’s Rule

When President’s Rule is imposed, the normal democratic process in the state is suspended, and administrative control is transferred to the central government. The key administrative changes during this period are as follows:

• Role of the Governor: The Governor becomes the executive head of the state and functions as the President’s representative. The Governor assumes full control over administration and legislative functions, replacing the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers. The Governor depends on bureaucrats (civil servants) and directives from the central government to make administrative decisions.
• Status of the Legislative Assembly: The state legislative assembly is either suspended or dissolved. In the case of suspension, the assembly remains in existence but cannot perform any legislative functions. If the assembly is dissolved, it ceases to exist until new elections are held.
• Role of Parliament: The Union Parliament (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha) assumes the legislative functions of the state. During President’s Rule, Parliament is informed about all major administrative decisions related to the state.
• Impact on Governance: The governance of the state depends entirely on bureaucracy (civil services), as there is no elected government. No new laws are usually enacted during this period. Welfare schemes and public service programs may slow down due to delays in decision-making.
• Democratic Process and Elections: The Election Commission is responsible for conducting elections within six months to restore democratic governance. If elections cannot be held due to unfavorable conditions, Parliament’s approval is required for further extension of the President’s Rule. Once a new Chief Minister and Council of Ministers are elected, the President’s Rule is automatically revoked.

Landmark Judicial Ruling on President’s Rule

To prevent the misuse of Article 356 and to control the arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule by the central government, the Supreme Court has delivered several landmark judgments. The most significant of these is the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case, which interpreted Article 356 and set clear limitations on its use.

• Background: S.R. Bommai who was CM of the Janata Dal government in Karnataka. In 1989, his government was dismissed, and President’s Rule was imposed in the state. His government was not given the opportunity to prove its majority in the Assembly, making the decision appear arbitrary.
• Supreme Court’s Intervention: S.R. Bommai challenged the dismissal of his government, and the case reached the Supreme Court. On March 11, 1994, a 9-judge Constitution Bench ruled that his dismissal was unconstitutional.
• Guidelines Set by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court established key guidelines to prevent the misuse of Article 356:
  • Majority Test Must Be in the Assembly: A government’s majority must be tested on the floor of the Assembly, not determined by the Governor or the central government.
  • State Government Must Be Given an Explanation Opportunity: Before dismissing a government, the state leadership must be given a chance to clarify the situation.
  • President’s Satisfaction Is Subject to Judicial Review: The President’s decision to impose President’s Rule is not absolute—it can be challenged in court.
  • Parliamentary Approval Before Assembly Dissolution: The President cannot dissolve the State Assembly until the Proclamation of President’s Rule is approved by Parliament.
  • Administrative Failure Is Not a Valid Ground: President’s Rule can be imposed only in cases of constitutional breakdown, not merely due to administrative failure.
  • Article 356 Should Be Used Sparingly: The central government must exercise restraint and discretion while imposing President’s Rule and should not use it for political motives.

Instances of President’s Rule in Independent India

Since 1950, President’s Rule has been imposed 134 times across 29 states and union territories. The reasons have included constitutional crises, political instability, and law-and-order failures.

• Jammu & Kashmir (4,668 days – Over 12 years): The longest period of President’s Rule in India. This was imposed in 1990 due to terrorism and separatist movements.
• Punjab (3,878 days – Over 10 years): Due to terrorism, violence, and severe law-and-order issues.
• Puducherry (2,739 days – Over 7 years): Frequent political instability and defections led to repeated imposition of President’s Rule.
• Uttar Pradesh & Manipur: President’s Rule has been imposed 10 times in both states due to political instability and governance failures.

President’s Rule: Criticism and Suggested Reforms

• Criticism of President’s Rule
  • The central government has often used Article 356 to remove political opponents from power. Example: In 1977 and 1980, after a change in the central government, 9 state governments were dismissed each time.
  • President’s Rule erodes the autonomy of states, disrupting the balance of power in India’s federal structure. Elected state governments are replaced by direct central control, weakening democratic governance.
  • Dismissing an elected state government undermines the people’s mandate. Governance is transferred to bureaucrats, making the administration less accountable to the public.
  • Political instability, defections, or internal conflicts have been used as reasons to impose President’s Rule, even when they are not valid constitutional grounds. Example: In the S.R. Bommai case (1994), the Karnataka government was dismissed without a floor test, making the decision appear arbitrary.
  • The government cannot use secularism as a justification to impose Article 356. The Supreme Court has ruled that President’s Rule cannot be misused in the name of protecting secularism.

Suggested Reforms

• Recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission (1983): 
  • Article 356 should be used only in extreme and rare cases. 
  • The state government should be warned first and given an opportunity to explain itself. 
  • A state government should not be dismissed without a floor test in the Assembly.
• Recommendations of the Punchhi Commission (2007): 
  • Instead of imposing President’s Rule across the entire state, it should be limited to the affected areas. 
  • Other constitutional measures should be exhausted before invoking Article 356.
• Supreme Court’s Guidelines in the S.R. Bommai Case (1994): 
  • Majority must be tested in the Assembly, and not just based on the Governor’s report.
  • The President cannot dissolve the State Assembly until Parliament approves the Proclamation.
  • Judicial review of the President’s Rule is allowed to prevent its misuse.

Explore our Books: https://apnipathshala.com/product-category/books/

Explore Our test Series: https://tests.apnipathshala.com/