President’s Rule (Article 356)

1. It can be proclaimed when the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution due to reasons which may not have any connection with war, external aggression or armed rebellion.

2. During its operation, the state executive is dismissed and the state legislature is either suspended or dissolved. The president administers the state through the governor and the Parliament makes laws for the state. In brief, the executive and legislative powers of the state are assumed by the Centre.

3. Under this, the Parliament can delegate the power to

subjects enumerated in the State List only by itself, that is, it cannot delegate the same to any other body or authority.

4. There is no maximum period prescribed for its operation. It can be continued indefinitely with the approval of Parliament for every six months.

5. Under this, the relationship of the Centre with all the states undergoes a modification.

6. Every resolution of Parliament approving its proclamation or its continuance must be passed by a special majority.

7. It affects fundamental rights of the citizens.

8. Lok Sabha can pass a resolution for its revocation.

make laws for the state to the President or to any other authority specified by him. So far, the practice has been for the president to make laws for the state in consultation with the members of Parliament from that state. Such laws are known as President’s Acts.

4. There is a maximum period prescribed for its operation, that is, three years. Thereafter, it must come to an end and the normal constitutional machinery must be restored in the state.

5. Under this, the relationship of only the state under emergency with the Centre undergoes a modification.

6. Every resolution of Parliament approving its proclamation or its continuance can be passed only by a simple majority.

7. It has no effect on Fundamental Rights of the citizens.

8. There is no such provision. It can be revoked by the President only on his own.

For the first time, the President’s Rule was imposed in Punjab in 1951. By now, all most all the states have been brought under the President’s Rule, once or twice or more. The details in this regard are given in Table 16.2 at the end of this chapter.

When general elections were held to the Lok Sabha in 1977 after the internal emergency, the ruling Congress Party lost and the Janta Party came to power. The new government headed by Morarji Desai imposed President’s Rule in nine states9 (where the Congress Party was in power) on the ground that the assemblies in those states no longer represented the wishes of the electorate. When the Congress Party returned to power in 1980, it did the same in nine states10 on the same ground.‌

In 1992, President’s Rule was imposed in three BJP-ruled states (Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan) by the Congress Party on the ground that they were not implementing sincerely the ban imposed by the Centre on religious organisations. In a landmark judgement in Bommai case11 (1994), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of this proclamation on the ground that secularism is a 'basic feature’ of the Constitution. But, the court did not uphold the validity of the imposition of the President’s Rule in Nagaland in 1988, Karnataka in 1989 and Meghalaya in 1991.

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, while replying to the critics of this provision in the Constituent Assembly, hoped that the drastic power conferred by Article 356 would remain a 'deadletter’ and would be used only as a measure of last resort. He observed12 :

"The intervention of the Centre must be deemed to be barred, because that would be an invasion on the sovereign authority of the province (state). That is a fundamental proposition which we must accept by reason of the fact that we have a Federal Constitution. That being so, if the Centre is to interfere in the administration of provincial affairs, it must be under some obligation which the Constitution imposes upon the Centre. The proper thing we ought to expect is that such Articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead- letter. If at all they are brought into operation, I hope the President who is endowed with this power will take proper

precautions before actually suspending the administration of the province.”

However, the subsequent events show that what was hoped to be a 'dead-letter’ of the Constitution has turned to be a 'deadly- weapon’ against a number of state governments and legislative assemblies. In this context, H.V. Kamath, a member of the Constituent Assembly commented a decade ago: 'Dr. Ambedkar is dead and the Articles are very much alive’.