Article 356 : Proclamation of Emergency and Imposition of President's Rule

Article 356 : Proclamation of Emergency and Imposition of President's Rule

The President’s Rule (Article 356), also known as the Governor’s Rule, refers to a period when the constitutional machinery in a State has failed, and the State government is unable to function in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. When the President of India proclaims an emergency under Article 356, the state government is suspended, and the central government takes over the administration, with the state legislative assembly either dissolved or suspended. 

Constitutional Provisions Related to President’s Rule

Article 355 to Article 357 in Part XVIII and Article 365 in Part XIX of the Indian Constitution are related to the President’s Rule. The Articles with subject matters are explained below:

Article 355: Duty of the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance

Article 356: Provisions in case of failure of Constitutional Machinery in States

Article 357: Exercise of legislative powers under proclamation issued under Article 356

Article 365: Effect of failure to comply with, or to give effect to, directions given by the Union.

Grounds of Imposition of President’s Rule

1. As per Article 355, the Indian Constitution imposes a duty on the Centre to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

2. It is this duty in the performance of which the Centre takes over the government of a State under Article 356 in case of failure of Constitutional Machinery in the State.

3. The President’s Rule can be proclaimed under Article 356 on two grounds:

4. Provisions under Article 356, and

5. Provisions under Article 365.

Effects of Proclamation of Emergency (President's Rule) under Article 356

When the President of India proclaims an emergency under Article 356, also known as President's Rule, the state government is suspended, and the central government takes over the administration, with the state legislative assembly either dissolved or suspended. 

1. The state government, including the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister, is effectively suspended, and the state legislative assembly is either dissolved or suspended. 

2. The central government takes over the administration of the state, exercising its powers through the Governor, who is appointed by the President. 

3. Parliament gains the power to legislate on matters within the state list, which are usually reserved for the state legislature. 

4. The state legislative assembly is either dissolved or prorogued, meaning it is adjourned indefinitely, and a new election is required after the President's Rule is lifted. 

5. The executive authority of the state is transferred to the Central Government, which exercises its powers through the Governor of the state. 

6. The Council of Ministers is dissolved, and the office of the Chief Minister is vacated. 

7. The Union Government directly rules over the state or the union territory. 

Duration of President's Rule:

The President's Rule initially lasts for six months, but can be extended for further periods, with the approval of both houses of Parliament, up to a maximum of three years. 

Judiciary's Independence:

The High Court continues to function independently during the President's Rule. 

Decided case references

1. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): The Supreme Court upheld the Centre’s broad discretion under Article 365 to impose President’s Rule.  

The Supreme Court ruled that judicial review is limited, reinforcing the unitary bias in Indian federalism and allowing the dismissal of State governments for constitutional non-compliance. 

2. S.R. Bommai Case (1994): The S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) judgment set important limits on the use of Article 356.  

The court ruled that the President's Rule is conditional, not absolute, and is subject to judicial review. 

The Court emphasized that Article 356 should only be invoked as a last resort and not for political purposes. 

The Court also ruled that the President cannot dissolve a state's assembly without Parliament's approval and must first issue a warning to the state government. 

The Supreme Court ruled that a government’s majority must be tested on the floor of the House before recommending President’s Rule. 

3. Rameshwar Prasad Case (2006): The Supreme Court held that the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly under President's Rule was unconstitutional.  

It emphasized judicial review of such decisions, reinforcing that President’s Rule should only be used for genuine breakdowns in governance, not political reasons.