Article 356 empowers the Union to impose President’s Rule in a State when the constitutional machinery fails. Between 1950-1990, it was invoked over 90 times. However, since the mid-1990s, its frequency has declined.
Grounds of Imposition of President’s Rule
Article 355 – Union’s duty to protect States and ensure constitutional governance.
Article 356 – President’s Rule if State govt. cannot be carried on as per Constitution (based on Governor’s report or otherwise).
Article 365 – If the State fails to comply with Union directions, the President may hold constitutional machinery has failed.
Legal Factors
The 38th Amendment (1975) made President’s Rule immune from judicial review, but the 44th Amendment (1978) reversed this, restoring judicial scrutiny.
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) Guidelines
Judicial Review – Proclamation under Article 356 subject to court scrutiny.
Floor Test Rule – Majority to be tested on the floor of the House, not decided by Governor/President.
Limits on Dissolution – Assembly cannot be dissolved before Parliament approves President’s Rule.
Non-Arbitrariness – Political differences or administrative failures do not justify dismissal.
Basic Structure Check – Federalism held as part of the Basic Structure; arbitrary use of Article 356 violates it.
Subsequent Judicial Oversight – SC interventions in Uttarakhand (2016) and Arunachal Pradesh (2016) reinstated governments, reinforcing judicial limits on Centre’s power.
Evolving Constitutional Conventions – Growing acceptance that President’s Rule is an exceptional remedy of last resort.
Political Factors
Rise of Coalition Politics (Post-1990s) – NDA, UPA and regional coalitions ensured that Centre relied on States for stability, reducing incentive for dismissals.
Rise of Regional Parties – Strong regional satraps made dismissal politically costly, pushing Union towards consensus-based federalism.
LPG Reforms (1991 onwards) shifted focus from political control to economic autonomy of states. Eg – 14th Finance Commission (2015) increased States’ share of divisible tax pool from 32% to 42%, strengthening fiscal federalism.
Maturation of Federal Culture – Growth of cooperative federal institutions (Inter-State Council, GST Council, NITI Aayog) created forums for resolving Centre-State disputes outside coercive measures.
Stable Majority Governments in States – As governance matured, strong state leadership and regional mandates reduced chances of political instability being exploited by the Union.
Active Role of President – In 1997, President K.R. Narayanan returned the Cabinet’s recommendation for President’s Rule in Uttar Pradesh.
Integrity of Governors – In 1990-91, Governor Surjit Singh Barnala refused Centre’s directive to recommend President’s Rule in Tamil Nadu.
Though the frequency of Article 356 has reduced, instances like Maharashtra (2019) show it is still misused. Thus, the way forward is
Punchhi Commission
Localized use of Article 356 – applicable to a district or part of a district, not the whole State.
Emergency duration should be limited to 3 months only.
Sarkaria Commission
Last resort – Invoke Article 356 only when all alternatives fail.
Prior warning to the State and exploration of alternate solutions required.
Proclamation must state material facts, ensuring Parliamentary control.
Governor’s report should be a speaking document with wide publicity.
Obtain State’s explanation before action.