What is Article 356?

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President of India to impose President’s Rule in a State if the constitutional machinery of the State fails.

Under this provision:

• The State government is dismissed or suspended
• The Governor administers the State on behalf of the President
• The State Legislature is suspended or dissolved
• Executive authority of the State is exercised by the Union

Constitutional Basis

• Article 356: Failure of constitutional machinery in States
• Article 355: Duty of the Union to protect States and ensure constitutional governance
• Article 357: Parliament’s power to make laws for States under President’s Rule

When Can Article 356 Be Invoked?

President’s Rule can be imposed when the President, on receipt of a Governor’s report or otherwise, is satisfied that:

• The State government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution

Common Situations

• Loss of majority by the Council of Ministers
• Breakdown of coalition or political instability
• Failure to form a government
• Constitutional deadlock
• Serious law and order breakdown
• Non-compliance with Union directions

Procedure

1. Governor sends a report to the President (not mandatory)
2. President issues a Proclamation under Article 356
3. Proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within 2 months
4. If approved, President’s Rule continues for 6 months at a time

Duration of President’s Rule

• Initial period: 6 months
• Maximum duration: 3 years
• Extension beyond 1 year requires:
  • National Emergency in operation or
  • Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be held

Effects of President’s Rule

• State executive powers exercised by the President
• Governor acts as the President’s representative
• State Council of Ministers removed
• State Legislative Assembly:
  • Suspended (kept under animation) or
  • Dissolved
• Parliament makes laws for the State

Judicial Review of Article 356

Originally considered non-justiciable, but this changed after landmark judgments.

Landmark Supreme Court Judgments

S. R. Bommai Case (1994) 

• President’s satisfaction is subject to judicial review
• Floor test is the correct method to test majority, not Governor’s discretion
• Article 356 is an exceptional measure, not a political tool
• Secularism is a basic feature; violation can justify President’s Rule
• State governments dismissed arbitrarily can be revived by courts

Rameshwar Prasad Case (2006)

• Dissolution of Assembly without floor test declared unconstitutional

Misuse of Article 356 (Historical Perspective)

• Frequently misused during 1967–1990
• Used to dismiss opposition-ruled State governments
• Peak misuse during 1970s and 1980s

Examples

• Kerala (1959)
• Multiple dismissals during Emergency period

Post-Bommai Scenario

• Sharp decline in misuse
• Stronger role of judiciary
• Emphasis on constitutional morality and federalism
• Preference for floor test over Governor’s subjective assessment

Criticism of Article 356

• Undermines federalism
• Gives excessive discretionary power to Centre
• Potential for political misuse
• Weakens democratic mandate of States

Justification & Need

• Necessary to handle:
  • Constitutional collapse
  • Insurgency or secessionist threats
  • Breakdown of law and order
• Acts as a constitutional safety valve

Article 356 & Federalism

• Represents quasi-federal nature of Indian Constitution
• Balances:
  • State autonomy
  • Union’s duty to maintain constitutional governance
• After judicial safeguards, now aligned with cooperative federalism

Comparison: Article 356 vs National Emergency

Way Forward

• Strict adherence to Bommai principles
• Mandatory floor tests
• Neutral and accountable role of Governors
• Parliamentary scrutiny and transparency
• Respect for electoral mandate of States