President Rule (article 356)

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution provides an explanation of the President's Rule. According to this Article, the President may issue a proclamation declaring a state of emergency if s/he determines, after receiving a report from the state's governor or through other means, that a situation has occurred that makes it impossible for the state's government to function normally. The President may declare a state of emergency in such a case by issuing a "proclamation on account of the failure (or breakdown) of constitutional machinery in the State." 'State Emergency' or 'Constitutional Emergency' are other names for it.

 

•    The Centre is required by Article 355 to ensure that each state's government is conducting itself in accordance with the law.

 

•    The Centre takes on this responsibility and, in accordance with Article 356, takes over control of the state's administration in the event that the state's constitutional machinery malfunctions.

 

•    Two reasons: one listed in Article 356 and the other in Article 365 allow the President's Rule to be enacted under Article 356.

 

•    The President may issue a proclamation in accordance with Article 356 if he or she decides that a circumstance has arisen that precludes a state's administration from continuing in accordance with the Constitution. Notably, even without the governor's report, the president may determine whether or not to act based on the report from the state governor.

 

•    According to Article 365, the president may declare that a situation has arisen in which the state's administration can no longer be conducted in line with the provisions of the constitution whenever a state refuses to adhere to or carry out a directive from the center. 

 

•    A similar proclamation to the National Emergency must be presented to both Houses of Parliament for approval.

 

•    If clearance isn't obtained in this situation within two months, the proclamation will no longer be valid.

 

•    Dissolution of the Lok Sabha: If the Lok Sabha is dissolved during these two months and the Rajya Sabha has approved it, the proclamation will expire thirty days after the date the newly reconstituted Lok Sabha holds its first sitting, unless it is approved by the Lok Sabha sooner.

 

•    Timeframe: A proclamation that has been thus approved, unless it has been rescinded, expires six months after the date it was issued.

 

•    Its life may be prolonged by six months at a time, up to a maximum of three years, unless it is cancelled. After then, the President's Rule must terminate and the State's regular constitutional apparatus must be reinstated.

 

•    A new clause was added by the 44th Amendment to limit Parliament's ability to extend a proclamation made in accordance with Article 356 for longer than a year.

 

•    A later proclamation may rescind or modify any such proclamation.

 

•    Only the President acting alone may withdraw it.

 

•    An announcement made in accordance with Article 356(1) expires in one of the following ways:

 

•    It is not presented for approval before both Houses of the Parliament after two months have passed since its creation [Article 356(3)].

 

•    If the proclamation is presented to the Houses of Parliament but is not approved by any House, it may be made even earlier than the two-month deadline [Article 356(3)].

 

•    After six months have passed after the proclamation's date, if the House of Parliament has not yet enacted another resolution approving the proclamation [Article 356(4)].

 

•    If a National Emergency is already in effect, or if the State Assembly election cannot be held, according to the Election Commission's certification. The achievement of the requirements outlined in Article 356(5) is a requirement for the proclamation to continue beyond the first year.

 

•    By virtue of the 38th Amendment Act of 1975, the President's approval to use Article 356 became definitive and binding and could not be disputed in court on any grounds.

 

•    However, this provision was eventually eliminated by the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, so the President's satisfaction is now open to judicial scrutiny.

 

The following things happen when a state declares an emergency because its constitutional machinery has broken down:

•    All or any of the State Government's duties may be assumed by the President, or they may be delegated to the Governor or another administrative authority.

 

•    The State Legislative Assembly may be suspended or dissolved by the President. He may give the Parliament the power to enact laws on the State Legislature's behalf.

 

•    Any further incidental or consequential provisions required to carry out the proclamation's purpose may be made by the President.

 

•    However, the President is not permitted to take over the High Court's authority or suspend any relevant constitutional provision.

 

•    The citizens' Fundamental Rights are unaffected.

 

•    It was first used in 1951 (Punjab) and has since been used more than one hundred times.

 

•    In response to the 1992 imposition of president rule in Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan, the Supreme Court in 1994 set rules in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (9 Judge Bench).

 

•    Even though the 38th constitutional amendment legislation had rendered judicial review of presidential satisfaction impossible. The same is now open to judicial review thanks to the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act.

 

Further principles of this judgment related to the appropriate or inappropriate circumstance in which president rule is enforced in light of the Sarkaria committee report. Which are:

•    if there is a hung assembly as a result of the assembly election.

 

•    if the party with the most votes decides against forming a government.

 

•    No one is able or willing to form a government.

 

•    If the State has disregarded the instruction given by the Union.

 

•    Internal subversion is when a government consciously violates the law or the constitution.

 

•    If there is a physical breakdown, that is, if the government consciously chooses not to carry out its duties and provide for state governance.

 

•    It is imposed solely on the basis of the Governor's evaluation, without a floor test.

 

•    Even though the government is overthrown, the governor doesn't try to replace it.

 

•    Defeat in the Lok Sabha elections for the ruling party.

 

•    Maladministration, accusations of corruption, and severe financial constraints are almost certainly at blame.

 

•    Without first informing the state of the need for correction.

 

•    For internal or unrelated uses.

 

•    There are many issues with how President's Rule was implemented on different periods. Sometimes the circumstances really called for it.

 

•    But other times, even though that particular party held a majority in the Legislative Assembly, President's Rule was enforced merely for political reasons to overthrow the ministry created by a party other than the one at the Centre.

 

•    Assemblies have been suspended or dissolved, and other political parties haven't been given the chance to establish administrations in states, due to the Union Government's partisan consideration, for which Article 356 has plainly been misapplied. 

 

The possibility of abuse of power exists even if Article 356 is modified while taking into account every suggestion made by the Sarkaria Commission, as the success of any law depends on how well it is implemented. The union administration should refrain from abusing this ability to achieve their own political objectives because a strict interpretation of Article 356 can only be expected to maintain the spirit of "co-federation" while selecting for President Rule.