Article 356

Article 356 of the Constitution of India empowers the President of India to intervene in the governance of a State when its constitutional machinery fails to function in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Commonly referred to as the President’s Rule, this provision represents one of the most powerful emergency measures in India’s federal system. It serves as a constitutional safeguard to maintain governance and constitutional order in exceptional situations but has also been one of the most debated and criticised provisions in Indian political history.

Constitutional Context

Article 356 is a part of Part XVIII of the Constitution, which deals with Emergency Provisions (Articles 352–360). While Articles 352 and 360 relate to national and financial emergencies, Article 356 specifically addresses a failure of constitutional machinery at the State level.
The article derives its spirit from Article 355, which imposes a duty upon the Union to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the Constitution. If a State government fails in this duty, Article 356 provides the mechanism for intervention.

Text and Core Provisions

The essence of Article 356 lies in its two broad components — the conditions under which President’s Rule can be imposed and the effects of such a proclamation.
1. Conditions for Imposition:

• If the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of a State or otherwise, is satisfied that the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, a proclamation may be issued.
• This proclamation allows the President to:
  • Assume all or any of the functions of the State Government and the powers vested in the Governor or any other State authority;
  • Declare that the powers of the State Legislature shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament; and
  • Make incidental or consequential provisions necessary to give effect to the proclamation.

2. Parliamentary Approval and Duration:

• Every proclamation issued under Article 356 must be presented before both Houses of Parliament for approval.
• If approved by both Houses within two months, the proclamation remains in force for six months.
• The proclamation can be extended further, in increments of six months, with the continued approval of Parliament, but cannot remain in operation for more than three years in total, except in exceptional circumstances.
• The President may revoke or vary the proclamation at any time through another order.

Circumstances Leading to the Use of Article 356

President’s Rule has typically been imposed under the following circumstances:

• Political instability, where no party or coalition can form a viable government.
• Breakdown of law and order or failure of administrative machinery.
• Failure to comply with Union directions under Article 256 or 257.
• Loss of majority by the ruling government and refusal to resign or prove confidence in the legislature.
• Situations of secessionism or insurgency threatening the integrity of the State.

While these grounds are legitimate, the provision has often been criticised for being invoked on political considerations rather than genuine constitutional failure.

Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Case Laws

The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in defining and limiting the scope of Article 356, ensuring that its use remains constitutionally justifiable.

• State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): The Court upheld the President’s discretion to impose President’s Rule but refrained from laying down specific judicial standards for such action. However, this judgment later came under scrutiny for allowing wide executive discretion.
• S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This landmark judgment fundamentally transformed the interpretation of Article 356. The Supreme Court ruled that:
  • The power of the President under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.
  • The imposition of President’s Rule must be based on objective material indicating a genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery.
  • The majority of a government must be tested on the floor of the Assembly, not determined by the Governor’s report alone.
  • The Court laid down strict guidelines to prevent misuse of the provision for political gains.

  This case reaffirmed federalism as part of the basic structure of the Constitution and significantly curtailed arbitrary central intervention in State affairs.

• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): The Court held that the dissolution of a State Assembly before testing the majority on the floor of the House was unconstitutional, emphasising that President’s Rule must be imposed only in cases of actual breakdown, not anticipated failure.
• Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980): The Court reiterated that even during emergencies, the basic structure of the Constitution, including federalism and judicial review, cannot be destroyed.

These rulings collectively ensure that Article 356 cannot be invoked arbitrarily and remains subject to constitutional and judicial checks.

Historical Context and Use

Since the Constitution came into effect, Article 356 has been invoked over 125 times, often generating political and constitutional debate.
Notable instances include:

• 1959: Dismissal of the Communist government in Kerala — the first controversial use of Article 356.
• 1977 and 1980: Frequent impositions of President’s Rule following changes in the central government.
• 1975–1977 Emergency Period: Centralisation of power under Indira Gandhi, when Article 356 was used to dismiss opposition-led State governments.
• 1992: Dismissal of BJP-led State governments following the Babri Masjid demolition.

Such repeated uses led to concerns over the erosion of federal principles and political misuse of emergency powers, prompting the judiciary to step in through decisions like S. R. Bommai.

Effects of President’s Rule

When Article 356 is invoked:

• The President assumes executive authority of the State.
• The Governor acts as the agent of the Centre, exercising functions under the President’s direction.
• The State Legislature is either dissolved or suspended, with Parliament or the President assuming its law-making powers.
• The administration of the State is carried out directly by the Union Government through centrally appointed officials.

Despite these measures, the judicial, financial, and legislative independence of the States is expected to be restored once normalcy returns and an elected government resumes office.

Significance of Article 356

Article 356 plays a dual role in India’s constitutional framework:

• Safeguard for Constitutional Governance: It ensures that democracy and constitutional order are maintained even when a State government fails.
• Instrument for National Integration: It allows the Union to act swiftly to preserve stability and security in extraordinary circumstances.

However, its use must remain exceptional, guided by constitutional morality and judicial oversight.

Criticism and Controversies

Article 356 has been one of the most controversial provisions in the Constitution. Critics argue that:

• It has been misused for partisan purposes, particularly by central governments to dismiss opposition-ruled States.
• Its frequent invocation undermines the federal structure and weakens State autonomy.
• Ambiguity in defining “constitutional failure” gives wide discretion to the Union, making the provision susceptible to abuse.

The S. R. Bommai judgment and the Punchhi Commission (2010) recommendations have attempted to address these concerns by prescribing stricter procedural safeguards and advocating cooperative federalism.

Contemporary Relevance

In recent years, Article 356 has been used sparingly, largely due to judicial vigilance and political awareness. The judiciary continues to act as the guardian of federalism, ensuring that the Union’s power to impose President’s Rule remains constitutionally justified.Moreover, the shift toward coalition politics and regional empowerment has contributed to a more balanced exercise of Centre–State relations.