Consolidated Fund of the State.

3.5. Instances of imposition of Article 356

♤ Jammu and Kashmir (2019): J&K was placed under Governor’s Rule after one of the coalition partners pulled out of government. Governor’s rule was proclaimed under the section 92 of the Constitution of J&K with President of India’s concurrence.

♤ Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand (2017): President’s Rule was imposed in two states. In Uttarakhand, the role the Centre played was scrutinized and the President’s proclamation was challenged; whereas in Arunachal Pradesh, the Governor was reprimanded. The Congress reclaimed power in Uttarakhand after the Supreme Court directed a floor test and in Arunachal Pradesh, the “unconstitutional” use of powers by the Governor was proclaimed as adequate to hand over the reins to the Congress government.

♤ Delhi 2014: Delhi was put under President’s rule in February 2014, when Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal resigned. The Assembly was placed under suspended animation and this promulgation was approved by the Parliament in the budget session. The assembly has still not been dissolved. By June, the first six-month period would end and then it would either be extended by six months or fresh elections would be held after dissolving the assembly.

♤ Bihar 2005-06: Bihar assembly was dissolved in 2005 after President’s rule had been declared in the state, three months before, as the state assembly elections had resulted in a hung assembly. The decision, when challenged in the Supreme Court resulted in the Governor drawing the ire of the Court for not discharging constitutional duties with a sense of impartiality. As per the Court, there were hidden political motives in this particular action, so as to prevent the formation of government by a particular party. When the Governor justified his actions on basis of fear of defection the court asserted that it is the Speaker’s duty to prevent defection, while the Governor’s duty is limited to swear in the party with majority.