Article 365

Article 365 of the Constitution of India empowers the Union Government to take action against a State Government that fails to comply with constitutional directives issued by the Union. This provision serves as an important instrument for maintaining the integrity of India’s federal system, ensuring that State governments function in accordance with the Constitution and uphold national unity.

Constitutional Context and Placement

Article 365 forms part of Part XIX (Miscellaneous) of the Constitution, but its application is closely connected with the provisions relating to President’s Rule under Article 356. It acts as a constitutional bridge between the executive authority of the Union and the autonomy of the States, ensuring that States do not disregard directions necessary for maintaining constitutional governance.
The article plays a crucial role in enforcing cooperative federalism, enabling the Centre to ensure that the constitutional machinery in States does not break down due to deliberate non-compliance with Union instructions.

Text and Meaning of Article 365

The article reads:

“Where any State has failed to comply with, or to give effect to, any directions given in the exercise of the executive power of the Union under any of the provisions of this Constitution, it shall be lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.”

This provision allows the President of India—acting on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers—to determine that a situation of constitutional breakdown has arisen in a State if the State government does not comply with the directions of the Union government issued under constitutional authority.

Purpose and Rationale

The framers of the Constitution included Article 365 to maintain the unity and integrity of the Indian Union, while preserving the federal balance between the Centre and the States. The article ensures that:

• States adhere to constitutional norms and directions issued by the Union;
• The Union’s executive authority is respected across the federation; and
• Any defiance by a State government can be corrected through constitutional means, without resorting to extra-legal measures.

Connection with Article 356

Article 365 functions as a triggering mechanism for the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356. When a State government fails to comply with Union directions, the President may, under Article 365, form an opinion that the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution.
Once such an opinion is reached, Article 356 can be invoked to:

• Dismiss the State Council of Ministers;
• Dissolve or suspend the State Legislative Assembly; and
• Assume the functions of the State government under the President’s Rule framework.

Thus, Article 365 provides the constitutional justification for presidential intervention when State governments act contrary to Union directives or violate constitutional principles.

Circumstances Leading to Invocation

The Union may issue directives to States under various provisions of the Constitution, including:

• Article 256: Obligation of States to ensure compliance with laws made by Parliament;
• Article 257: Control of the Union over States in matters involving national interest, defence, or external affairs;
• Article 339: Directions regarding Scheduled Areas and Tribes; and
• Article 355: The duty of the Union to protect States against external aggression or internal disturbance.

If a State government defies such directions, the situation may attract Article 365, enabling the President to evaluate whether constitutional governance in the State has collapsed.

Judicial Interpretation and Key Case Law

The Supreme Court of India has examined the scope and constitutional limits of Article 365 in several landmark decisions, ensuring that its exercise remains within constitutional boundaries.

• State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): The Supreme Court upheld the Union’s authority to issue directions to States and held that failure to comply could justify presidential action under Article 365 read with Article 356. However, the Court cautioned that such powers should be used only to protect constitutional governance, not for political purposes.
• Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Although not directly addressing Article 365, the judgment established the basic structure doctrine, which includes federalism as an essential feature of the Constitution. This ensures that Article 365 cannot be used arbitrarily to undermine the federal balance.
• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This landmark case placed significant restrictions on the misuse of Article 356 (and by extension Article 365). The Supreme Court held that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, meaning that the invocation of Article 365 cannot be used to justify arbitrary dismissals of State governments.

These decisions collectively reinforce that while Article 365 gives the Union considerable power to ensure compliance, its exercise must conform to constitutional morality and democratic principles.

Implications of Non-Compliance by States

When a State government fails to comply with directions issued by the Union, the consequences can be both political and constitutional:

• Constitutional Breakdown: Non-compliance may indicate that the State government is not functioning in accordance with constitutional provisions.
• Presidential Intervention: The President may declare President’s Rule, assuming direct control of the State administration.
• Judicial Oversight: The President’s decision, though initially based on executive assessment, remains open to judicial scrutiny.

This layered mechanism ensures that the Union’s authority is upheld while safeguarding the autonomy and democratic rights of the States.

Historical Use and Practical Application

Since the adoption of the Constitution, Article 365 has often served as the legal basis for imposing President’s Rule under Article 356. While it has been invoked in various political crises, the frequency of its use has diminished following the S.R. Bommai judgment, which introduced stricter conditions for its application.
Examples of indirect application include instances in which States allegedly failed to maintain law and order, comply with Union policies, or uphold constitutional obligations—leading to the proclamation of President’s Rule in those States.

Relationship with Federalism and State Autonomy

Article 365 embodies the federal structure with a unitary bias that characterises the Indian Constitution. While it preserves the supremacy of the Union in matters of constitutional compliance, it also recognises the autonomy of the States by limiting the Union’s powers to circumstances of genuine constitutional failure.
The article thus reflects a balance between central control and state independence, ensuring that the Union’s authority is used not to suppress political opposition but to maintain constitutional order.

Safeguards Against Misuse

To prevent abuse of power under Article 365, several constitutional and judicial safeguards exist:

• The President’s decision must be based on objective material evidence indicating constitutional breakdown.
• Judicial review under the Bommai judgment acts as a check on arbitrary or politically motivated actions.
• Parliament must approve any proclamation of President’s Rule within two months, ensuring legislative oversight.

These safeguards collectively prevent the Union from unilaterally undermining the democratic functioning of State governments.

Significance in the Constitutional Framework

Article 365 plays a pivotal role in ensuring constitutional discipline within India’s quasi-federal system. Its significance lies in:

• Upholding the supremacy of the Constitution over political entities;
• Enforcing cooperation between the Union and the States;
• Protecting the unity and integrity of the nation; and
• Providing a constitutional mechanism to address crises of governance.

At the same time, it reinforces the principle that federalism is cooperative, not competitive, and that both levels of government must function harmoniously within their constitutional boundaries.