an argument against scrapping of article 356 is that in light of the various massive public

demonstrations against long established governments albeit dictatorships , India needs to be

careful about the designs of its adversaries orchestrating such revolts/unrest in its bordering states
as it shares a porous border with many countries inimical (not friendly) to it. Imagine a scenario
where a crtain border state witnesses massive protest calling for ouster of the democratically
elected governement with massive street protests engineered by a devious enemy through
propaganda based on lies by the instant medium of facebook and twitter as as happened in tunisia
and egypt and now in libya,iran and oman. the centre would need the authority to move in to
control the situation in order to preserve the territorial integrity of the nation.

article 356 may not sound so draconian in that situation.

the Supreme court has ruled that article 356 be used in the rarest of the rare circumstances only
due to the various instances of misuse of the same by the central govt against states where
opposition parties were in power such as was the practise in 80s and 70s.

article 356 should be used but with adequate checks and balances such as the above mentioned
one.

President's rule (or Central Rule) is the term used in India when a state legislature is
dissolved or suspended and the state is placed under direct federal rule. President's rule is
enabled by article 356 of the Constitution of India, which gives the central government the
authority to impose president's rule in any state if there has been failure of the constitutional
machinery in the state.

It is called President's rule as the President of India governs the state instead of a Council of
Ministers who are answerable to the elected legislature. State governor is delegated
executive authority on behalf of the central (federal) government. The governor normally
appoints advisor(s), who are retired civil servants, to help in administration. Since governor
is appointed by the President of India on the advice of the central government, in practice
policies are controlled by the ruling party at the Centre.

Article 356 allows the president to dismiss a state government on the advice of the governor of
concerned state or on his own if he is satisfied that the administration government of the state
cannot be carried out according to the provisions of the constitution. Once the elected government
is dismissed the President of India shall be the head of the state executive. As in practice, the
President acts according to the advice of Council of Ministers at the Centre, the administration of
the state is performed according to the policies of ruling party at the Centre.

Misused
In spite of the assurance given by Dr. Ambedkar, Article 356 was continually misused, for 50 years, by
the Centre. And, this was strongly objected to by several leaders right from Kerala to U.P.

Judicial review of a Presidential order clamping Article 356 was totally shut out during the Emergency,
by the 38th Constitutional Amendment. It added clause (5) to Article 356, stating, "Notwithstanding
anything in the Constitution, the satisfaction of the President mentioned in Clause (I) shall be final and
conclusive and shall not be questioned on any ground." However, thanks to the 44th Constitutional
Amendment Act brought forth in 1978 by Morarji Desai, the original Article 356, as envisaged by Dr.
Ambedkar, was restored.

On March 24, 1983, in response to the shrill demand by several Opposition leaders, Indira Gandhi
appointed a commission headed by Justice R.S. Sarkaria to go into the Centre-State relationship. After
five years of deliberations, the Sarkaria Commission gave its report in 1988. A series of concrete steps
to strengthen federalism and prevent the misuse of Article 356 were given by the commission. But
these recommendations were not given any statutory form. It was only because of this anomalous
situation that several State Governments could be summarily dismissed even after 1988 by the Union
Governments headed by Chandra Shekhar and P.V. Narasimha Rao.

However, in 1994, a Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of nine Judges gave its judgment in the
case of "S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India," setting out in clear terms the limitations of Article 356. The
Court said any Presidential order clamping Art. 356 had to be ratified by both the Houses of
Parliament. In addition, the powers of the Judiciary to review the bona fide or mala fide nature of the
Presidential order were reiterated. As a rider, the Bench gave a list of ten situations which did not
amount to "failure of constitutional machinery." One of them was "(1) A situation of maladministration
in a State where a duly constituted ministry enjoys the support of the Assembly." As on date, the
judgment given by the Bench in the "S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India" stays. It is only for this reason,
that strong attempts to dismiss a duly elected BJP Government in U.P. failed in 1998.

ARTICLE 356 is one among the nine Articles, beginning from Art. 352 and ending with Art. 360, known
as Emergency Provisions, enumerated in Chapter XVIII of the Constitution. Art. 356 was introduced as
Draft Article 278, on August 3, 1949 by the then Union Law Minister, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, in the
Constituent Assembly, and was cleared by it the subsequent day.

India or Indian politics same word for whom who are not aware about the political system of our
country, Who are not conscious how political party manipulated our constitution just for the sake of
personal benefit, but not for good governance. Now the question arise that Indian constitution is a
rigid constitution or not, a constitution which was easily amended or not a constitution which work
according to a political party or not there are so many question arise but still our political leader are
not ready to accept their mistake. This is something erroneous why our constitution gives such
power to the union government to absolute control over the state and if it gives so then why we
follow the principle of federalism. From the very beginning article 356 is renewed for its miss use
and become the active tool for central government to control over the state without any cause. The
father of our constitution DrB.R Ambedkar are totally unaware that article 356 is distorted badly by
the central government, but according to them article 356 was one of the instrument through which
central government protect the state government of any external or internal aggression. There is
always a big question whether India follow the principle of federalism or not. The word union does
not show any type of federation, since it is used also in the preamble of the constitution of the united
state- the model of federation; in the preamble of the British north America (which according to lord
Haldane, did not created a true federation at all) still the word federal was also mentioned in our
preamble but I don't think so that in this regard we follow our preamble because of article 356 which
become the major hurdle.