STATE EMERGENCY/PRESIDENT’S RULE
Introduction Constitutional Provisions – State Emergency
Article 356, also known as President’s Rule, is 355. Duty of the Union to protect States
designed to be invoked when a state cannot against external aggression and internal
function constitutionally. It grants the Union disturbance
Cabinet power to dismiss democratically
It shall be the duty of the Union
elected state governments and dissolve
legislative assemblies. • to protect every State against external
aggression and internal disturbance
Dr. BR Ambedkar explained, “I do not
and
altogether deny that there is a possibility of
these articles being abused or employed for • to ensure that the Government of
political purposes… and I share the sentiments every State is carried on in
that such articles will never be called into accordance with the provisions of this
operation and that they would remain a dead Constitution.
letter.” 365. Effect of failure to comply with, or to
In 1988 the Sarkaria Commission found that at give effect to, directions given by the Union
least a third of all Article 356 impositions were • Where any State has failed to comply
politically motivated. with or to give effect to any directions
The reason was simple: Once dismissed, it was given in the exercise of the executive
much harder for that government or party to power of the Union under any of the
get re-elected. Of the 123 instances of provisions of this Constitution,
President’s Rule in states (1952-2019), the • it shall be lawful for the President to
dismissed CM continued only in 24 cases, and hold that a situation has arisen in
the dismissed party formed the government which the Government of the State
again in only 44 instances. cannot be carried on in accordance
with the provisions of this
Constitution.
Article 356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State
Clause Key Point Details
(1) Presidential Proclamation Issued if State govt can't function per Constitution.
(1)(a) Takeover of State Functions President can assume functions of State Govt (except
Legislature and High Court powers).
(1)(b) Parliament Acts as State Parliament gets powers to legislate for the State.
Legislature
(1)(c) Incidental Provisions President can suspend State constitutional provisions
(except for High Courts).
(2) Revocation/Modification Proclamation can be revoked or changed by another
Proclamation.
(3) Parliamentary Approval Must be approved by both Houses within 2 months, or
it lapses.
(4) Validity Duration Valid for 6 months per approval; maximum total
duration = 3 years.
(5) Extension beyond 1 Year Only if: (a) Emergency is in force, and (b) Election
Commission certifies elections cannot be held.
Article 357. Exercise of legislative powers under Proclamation issued under article 356
Clause Key Point Details
(1)(a) Delegation of Parliament can give State legislative powers to the President,
Legislative Powers who can further delegate them to another authority under set
conditions.
(1)(b) Laws for Union Parliament, President, or delegated authority can create laws
Officers giving powers and duties to Union officers and authorities.
(1)(c) Expenditure If Lok Sabha is not in session, the President can authorize State
Authorization expenses from the Consolidated Fund, pending Parliament’s
approval.
(2) Continuation of Laws made during President’s Rule stay in force even after the
Laws Proclamation ends, until changed, repealed, or amended by a
competent authority.
The Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, Article 357 was amended so as to ensure
that laws made for a State, while it was under Article 356 emergency, would not cease immediately
after the expiry of the emergency, but would instead continue to be in effect until the law was
changed by the State Legislature.
Presidential Power Under Article 356: Judicial they seek dissolution of state
Review and Constitutional Implications legislatures
• Several states filed suit in the
Early Judicial Approach: Rao Birinder Singh v.
Supreme Court to prevent invocation
India (1968)
of Art. 356
Key Findings of the Punjab High Court Supreme Court's Position
1. Presidential proclamations under Art. The Court unanimously dismissed the suit,
356(1) were deemed not amenable to establishing that:
judicial scrutiny 1. Judicial interference was not
2. The court established that: warranted unless constitutional
• The proclamation was not an provisions were being infringed
executive action of the Union 2. Art. 74(2) prevented inquiry into
• The President was protected from ministerial advice to the President.
court jurisdiction under Art. 361(1) (Modified in S.R. Bommai Case)
• Constitutional authority over the 3. Art. 356(5) (then in force) made the
proclamation was vested exclusively President's satisfaction conclusive
in Parliament Scope of Article 356
• The advice given to the President The Court recognized that Art. 356 had a wide
could not be questioned under Art. scope:
74(2) • It could be used either preventively or
• The Governor's report to the as a curative action
President was beyond judicial • It could ensure state governance
questioning according to constitutional provisions
• It could secure compliance with
Constitutional Position Prior to 44th democratic norms
Amendment & S. R. Bommai Case Limits on Presidential Power
Early cases established that Presidential Despite the broad discretion, the Court
action under Art. 356 was practically immune identified certain limitations:
from judicial review, with Parliamentary 1. The President's satisfaction is a
oversight being the only check on this power. prerequisite for Art. 356 exercise
• The 38th Amendment (1975) explicitly 2. The power could be challenged if
made the President's "satisfaction" there was "no satisfaction at all"
under Art. 356(1) "final and 3. The immunity under Art. 356(5)
conclusive" and beyond judicial would not apply if the challenge was
questioning to the existence rather than propriety
of satisfaction
Landmark Case: State of Rajasthan v. Union 4. The power could be reviewed if its
of India exercise was "grossly perverse and
Background Context unreasonable" or constituted "patent
• In 1977, after emergency rule ended, misuse"
the Janata Party won national
elections, defeating the Congress Democratic Principles
Party The judgment emphasized that:
• Congress governments were still • The Constitution is committed to
functioning in several states democratic governance
• The Central Home Minister wrote to • State governments acting
Congress Chief Ministers suggesting undemocratically could be seen as not
carrying on governance in accordance of judicial scrutiny is therefore confined to an
with constitutional provisions examination whether the disclosed reasons
• Continuing governments that lost bear any rational nexus to the action proposed
people's confidence would be "purely or proclamation issued. The courts may
undemocratic in character" examine as to whether the proclamation was
based on a satisfaction which was mala fide for
Status of State Legislature & State any reason, or based on wholly extraneous and
Government irrelevant grounds. In such a situation, the
The Court ruled that the State Legislative stated satisfaction of the President would not
Assemblies could be dissolved without the be a satisfaction in the constitutional sense
President’s proclamation having been under Art. 356.
approved by the Parliament. The proclamation
comes into immediate effect and remains in In the end, however, the High Court dismissed
force for two months without parliamentary the petition holding that the facts stated in the
approval. (Overruled in S.R. Bommai Case) Governor’s report could not be held to be
irrelevant, Governor’s bona fides were not
S.R. Bommai v. UOI questioned and his satisfaction was based
Context upon reasonable assessment of all facts.
In 1989, the Janata Dal Ministry headed by Shri The Court also ruled that recourse to floor test
S.R. Bommai was in office in Karnataka. A was neither compulsory nor obligatory and
number of members defected from the party was not a pre-requisite to the sending of the
and there arose a question mark on the report to the President. (Overruled in Supreme
majority support in the House for the Court, later)
Bommai’s Ministry. The Chief Minister
proposed to the Governor that the Assembly Supreme Court
session be called to test the strength of the Bommai appealed to the Supreme Court
Ministry on the floor of the House. But the against the High Court decision.
Governor ignored this suggestion. He also did
not explore the possibility of an alternative Besides the Karnataka proclamation, the
government but reported to the President that Supreme Court was also called upon to decide
as Shri Bommai had lost the ma jority support the validity of similar proclamations under Art.
in the House, and as no other party was in a 356(1) in the States of Meghalaya and
position to form the government, action be Nagaland.
taken under Art. 356(1). Accordingly, the
President issued the proclamation in April, By the time the Bommai case came before the
1989. Supreme Court, Art. 356(5) putting a ban on
judicial review of Art. 356 proclamations had
Karnataka HC been repealed.
Bommai challenged the validity of the
proclamation before the Karnataka High Court In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, a nine-judge
through a writ petition on various grounds. Bench of the Supreme Court was constituted
The High Court ruled that the proclamation to decide critical issues surrounding the use
issued under Art. 356(1) is not wholly outside and misuse of Article 356(1) of the
the pole of judicial scrutiny; the satisfaction of Constitution, which permits the imposition of
the President under Art. 356(1) which is a President’s Rule in States. The case
condition present for issue of the proclamation consolidated multiple instances where Art. 356
ought to be real and genuine satisfaction based had been controversially invoked. Seven
on relevant facts and circumstances. The scope opinions were delivered, ranging from passive
to activist judicial attitudes regarding the • Dissolution of the Legislative Assembly is
justiciability of the President's proclamation. not mandatory upon issuance of
Despite some divergence, the judges proclamation.
developed a consensus on several key • It should be dissolved only if necessary to
propositions that have since become guiding fulfil the purposes of the proclamation.
principles on the use and limits of Article 356. 8. Parliamentary Approval as a Check
• As per Art. 356(3), the proclamation must
The Court held: be approved within two months by both
1. Presidential Power is Not Absolute Houses of Parliament.
• The President acts on the advice of the • Until then, the State Assembly should not
Council of Ministers. be dissolved; it should remain in
• The real authority lies with the Cabinet; suspended animation.
the President only exercises formal • Dissolution prior to parliamentary
powers. approval is invalid.
2. Floor Test is Essential Clarification on Earlier Precedent:
• Determination of majority must occur on • In Rajasthan v. Union of India, it was held
the floor of the Legislative Assembly, not that proclamation and dissolution could
in the Governor’s chamber. be valid even without parliamentary
• The Karnataka High Court was wrong in approval.
ruling the floor test non-essential. • However, Bommai overruled this, citing
3. Governor’s Role in Exploring Alternatives the need to avoid the situation where
• Before recommending President’s Rule, dissolution becomes irreversible if
the Governor must explore the possibility Parliament disapproves the proclamation.
of forming an alternative government. 9. Effect of Revocation or Lapse of
4. Judicial Review of Proclamations Proclamation
• A proclamation under Art. 356 is • Once the proclamation is:
justiciable. o Revoked, or
• Grounds of review include: o Lapses after six months,
o Absence of any material, neither the dismissed
o Irrelevant or extraneous material, government nor the dissolved
o Mala fide intent. legislature will be revived.
5. Existence and Relevance of Material 10. Effect of Judicial Invalidation
• The President must have reasonable and • If the Court invalidates the proclamation,
relevant material indicating constitutional even after parliamentary approval:
breakdown in the State. o The dismissed State Government
• Satisfaction must be based on such is reinstated,
material; otherwise, the proclamation is o The dissolved legislature is
open to challenge. restored.
• Justice Jeevan Reddy emphasized that 11. Limits of Article 74(2)
Art. 356 confers conditioned, not • Art. 74(2) bars inquiry into the advice
absolute power. itself, but not the material on which
6. Burden of Proof the advice was based.
• If the validity of the proclamation is • The Union Government must disclose
challenged, the Union Government must the relevant material if it seeks to
prove that relevant material existed—be justify the proclamation.
it the Governor’s report or other sources. • The Court will not assess the
7. Dissolution of Assembly Not Automatic adequacy or correctness of
material—only whether it was It has become very difficult to invoke Art. 356
relevant and germane. after the Bommai decision. The following
incidents prove the point.
Key Incidents Demonstrating Constraints on
Article 356
Uttar Pradesh Crisis (October 1997)
Background
• The Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh
obtained a vote of confidence on the
floor of the House amid
pandemonium
• This confidence vote was conducted
pursuant to a Supreme Court ruling
Presidential Intervention
• The Governor recommended
President's rule under Article 356(1)
citing breakdown of constitutional
machinery
• The Central Cabinet forwarded this
recommendation to the President
• The President, exercising powers
under Article 74(1), returned the
recommendation for reconsideration
Reasoning and Outcome
• The President questioned the
constitutional correctness of declaring
breakdown immediately after a
confidence vote
• The Central Government ultimately
withdrew its recommendation
• The Kalyan Singh Ministry remained
intact in the state
Bihar Crisis (October 1998)
Initial Recommendation
• The Central Government
recommended invoking Article 356 in
Bihar based on the Governor's report
• The report cited various acts of
commission and omission, particularly
deteriorating law and order
• The State Government maintained
majority support in the Assembly
Presidential Response
• The President referred the matter
Limitations on the Invocation of Article 356 back to the Cabinet for
Post-Bommai Decision reconsideration under Article 74(1)
• He distinguished between "bad • This condition was challenged but
government" and "breakdown of upheld by the Patna High Court in
constitutional machinery" Sapru Jayakar Motilal C.R. Das v.
• This distinction aligned with the Union of India (AIR 1999)
principles established in the Bommai Legal Principles Established
decision • Distinction between poor governance
Subsequent Developments and constitutional breakdown
• The Cabinet initially deferred decision • Presidential authority to return
but later renewed its Cabinet recommendations for
recommendation reconsideration
• The President, unable to refer the • Constitutional limits on repeated
matter back a second time under presidential referrals back to Cabinet
Article 74(1), approved the • Gubernatorial discretion in verifying
proclamation majority support in specific
• The State Government was dismissed circumstances
and the Legislature suspended
Resolution of the Crisis
These incidents demonstrate the significant
• The proclamation was approved by
procedural and substantive constraints placed
the Lok Sabha
on the invocation of Article 356 following the
• The Government revoked it when it
Bommai judgment. The decision has
became clear the Rajya Sabha would
effectively established higher thresholds for
not approve it
declaring a failure of constitutional
• The previous Chief Minister (Rabri
machinery, requiring more than allegations of
Devi) was invited to form the
poor governance or law and order issues to
government
justify central intervention in state affairs.
• The Governor imposed a condition to
prove majority within ten days
Comparison between Art. 352 & Art. 356
Aspect Article 352 Article 356
Nature of Situation Declared during war, Invoked when there is a failure of
external aggression, or constitutional machinery in a
armed rebellion (National State (President's Rule).
Emergency).
Suspension of State State Legislature continues State Legislature ceases to
Legislature to function. function (either dissolved or kept
in suspended animation).
Effect on State Governance Centre gets concurrent State is governed by the
powers of legislation. States Governor on behalf of the
continue functioning under President; laws for the State are
the Constitution. made by Parliament.
Effect on Fundamental May affect Fundamental Does not affect Fundamental
Rights Rights. Rights.
Extent of Application Affects the entire country or Affects only the State where the
multiple States. constitutional failure has
occurred.
Approval by Parliament Must be approved within 1 Must be approved within 2
month, and then every 6 months, then every 6 months.
months. No maximum Maximum duration is 3 years.
duration.
Purpose and Scope Addresses national-level Aims to restore constitutional
emergencies and threats to governance in a specific State.
sovereignty.
Possibility of Overlap May require Art. 356 if a Can be invoked to support
State Government does not implementation of Art. 352 if
cooperate during a national necessary.
emergency.
