Since its inception, Article 356 of the Indian Constitution—familiarly known as the provision for “President’s Rule”—has sparked both debate and controversy. The provision grants the Indian President, on the advice of the Union Cabinet, the power to impose direct central rule in a state if the constitutional machinery breaks down. Designed as a last-resort mechanism to safeguard the unity and integrity of India, it has profound implications for federalism, democracy, and governance in the world’s largest democracy.
Article 356 has been invoked over 100 times since 1950. Its frequent application, including during periods of political instability and regional upheaval, makes understanding its legal framework, historical context, and ongoing significance crucial for anyone interested in Indian politics or constitutional law.
At its core, Article 356 empowers the President of India to assume control over a state if, in their judgment, the state’s government cannot be carried on in accordance with constitutional provisions. This may include dismissing the state’s council of ministers, dissolving or suspending the legislative assembly, and exercising the powers of the state government through Parliament.
Specifically, Article 356(1) states:
“If the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation—assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State…”
Understanding Article 356 requires context from Article 355, which obligates the Union government to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance. Article 357 further defines the exercise of legislative powers during President’s Rule. Together, these provisions provide the constitutional schema for federal intervention.
While originally intended for rare emergencies, Article 356 soon became a tool invoked for varied reasons. The first imposition occurred in Punjab in 1951. Over subsequent decades, its use grew—for instance, during the turbulent periods of the 1970s and 1980s, when governments changed swiftly, and regional parties gained strength.
Two particularly notable instances followed general elections: in 1977, after the Janata Party’s victory, President’s Rule was imposed in several Congress-ruled states. The reverse occurred in 1980, with the Congress government returning the favor. These examples highlighted the susceptibility of Article 356 to political motivations, a trend that drew widespread criticism and legal challenges.
The Supreme Court’s landmark 1994 judgment in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India transformed the landscape. The court held that Presidential proclamations under Article 356 are subject to judicial review, reinforcing federal checks and safeguarding elected governments from arbitrary dismissal.
“The S.R. Bommai case established that Article 356 must be used sparingly and not as a means for political expediency,” remarked constitutional law scholar Prof. Subhash Kashyap. “Judicial review provides an essential check on the central government’s power in federal arrangements.”
The process is typically set in motion by the state’s Governor, who, citing failure of governance, sends a report to the President. However, the President can act “otherwise,” meaning even without a specific Governor’s report, based on independent knowledge or information.
Once the President issues a proclamation, it must be laid before both Houses of Parliament for approval within two months. If both Houses approve, President’s Rule continues for six months and can be extended, with parliamentary approval, up to a maximum of three years (under certain conditions, such as ongoing national emergency).
During President’s Rule, the state assembly may be suspended or dissolved, and the state is governed by the central government through the Governor. Legislative powers are exercised by Parliament, often through the means of delegated Union Cabinet authority.
Critics have long argued that Article 356 has served as a political weapon, deployed by the central government to unseat rival parties and consolidate power. During the 1970s and 1980s, several state governments were toppled under controversial circumstances, sparking debates over the abuse of central power.
On the other hand, defenders maintain that, in cases of genuine breakdown—such as severe law and order crises, communal violence, or constitutional deadlock—the provision is necessary to restore democracy and proper governance.
Post-1994, the judiciary’s power to review and potentially invalidate Presidential proclamations has served as an important check. The court can reinstate an unlawfully dismissed government, as in the cases of Karnataka, Nagaland, and Meghalaya in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
While the frequency of President’s Rule has decreased in recent decades—partly thanks to stronger institutions, coalitions, and judicial activism—the mechanism remains a critical, if controversial, element of India’s federal structure.
In the contemporary era, Article 356 has been used less frequently, but its impact remains significant during extraordinary circumstances. Examples include its imposition in Maharashtra during a government formation deadlock (2019) and Jammu & Kashmir post-2018, after the collapse of coalition governments.
These decisions provoked public debate about the ethical and constitutional limits of central intervention. In each instance, legal scrutiny followed, underscoring the delicate balance between stability and democratic self-government.
Several committees, including the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, have recommended using Article 356 only as a measure of last resort. Suggested reforms include:
Such frameworks aim to prevent future misuse and ensure that President’s Rule upholds, rather than undermines, constitutional democracy.
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution stands at the intersection of democratic ideals and the practical need to ensure national unity and constitutional governance. Its history underscores both the benefits and dangers inherent in central authority over states. Judicial reforms and a maturing political culture provide important safeguards, but ongoing vigilance remains essential.
The challenge for modern India is to preserve this constitutional safety valve while respecting the autonomy and mandate of elected state governments, ensuring that President’s Rule is truly a mechanism of last resort—and never of political convenience.
Article 356 allows the President of India to impose central rule in a state if the state government cannot function according to constitutional norms, effectively suspending the state’s autonomy temporarily.
The process usually begins with the Governor’s report to the President, followed by a formal proclamation. Parliament must approve the proclamation within two months, and President’s Rule can last up to three years with periodic renewals.
There have been multiple instances where Article 356 was seen as politically motivated, leading to the dismissal of opposition-led state governments. The Supreme Court’s S.R. Bommai judgment has since curtailed misuse by allowing judicial review.
Judicial review is the primary safeguard, along with recommendations from various commissions for greater transparency, clear guidelines, and mandatory floor tests to assess majority in state assemblies.
Yes, President’s Rule can be challenged in the Supreme Court or High Courts if the grounds for its imposition are viewed as unconstitutional or politically motivated, as established by the Bommai ruling.
President’s Rule is a powerful tool that centralizes power, raising concerns about the balance of state and central authority. While intended for emergencies, its use invariably tests the resilience and fairness of India’s federal system.
Marriage, within the framework of Indian society, is often viewed as a sacred and lifelong…
India’s Supreme Court stands as the ultimate guardian of constitutional values and the rule of…
The evolution of property rights in India is a testament to the country’s shifting social,…
Moments of national crisis can test the resilience of any democracy. The framers of the…
In the intricate design of the Indian democracy, the President holds certain extraordinary powers, particularly…
The Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma case stands as a landmark in Indian legal history,…