The Conditions of The Imposition of The Presidents Rule On The Ground of Article - 356
Uploaded by
IJAR JOURNALThe Conditions of The Imposition of The Presidents Rule On The Ground of Article - 356
Uploaded by
IJAR JOURNALISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res.
10(09), 120-121
Journal Homepage: - www.journalijar.com
Article DOI: 10.21474/IJAR01/15331
DOI URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/15331
RESEARCH ARTICLE
THE CONDITIONS OF THE IMPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENT’S RULE ON THE GROUND OF
ARTICLE -356
Dr. R. Bagri
Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Ram Lal Anand College, University of Delhi, India.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………....
Manuscript Info Abstract
……………………. ………………………………………………………………
Manuscript History Article 356 gave the Central government wide powers to stamp its clout
Received: 05 July 2022 on the state legislatures. Despite the fact that it was implied exclusively
Final Accepted: 09 August 2022 as a way to safeguard the uprightness and solidarity of the country, it
Published: September 2022 had been utilized obtrusively to expel state legislatures who were
controlled by political rivals of the middle. It was utilized without
Key words:-
State Emergency, Article-356 of Indian precedent for 1951 in Punjab.
Constitution, Misuse of Article-356,
President‟s Rule, State Emergency‟ or
„Constitutional Emergency‟
Copy Right, IJAR, 2022,. All rights reserved.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………....
Introduction:-
Discussion:-
As is evident from the provisions of Article 356, three conditions have to be fulfilled before the President exercises
his power under it. The conditions are as follows:
1. A report from the Governor of the State, or otherwise:
2. Satisfaction of the President as to the existence of a situation arises in which the Government of a State cannot
be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, i.e. the constitutional machinery in a State
has failed, and
3. Proclamation by the President.
The first requirement of any action under Article 356(1) is a report from the Governor of the State concerned
because he is the executive head of the State and he takes the oath, prescribed by Article 159, to preserve, protect
and defend the Constitution. The Supreme Court made it clear in the S.R. Bommai case (1994) that the Governor‟s
report may not be conclusive but its relevance is undeniable. Action under Article 356 can be based only and
exclusively upon such a report. So the report of the Governor should contain some facts, on the basis of which the
President would be able to form his opinion whether or not a situation contemplated in the Article has arisen.
The word „Otherwise‟ in Article 356 gives a „prima fade‟ impression that iii all cases, and irrespective of the
grounds which cause the „situation‟ required under the Article for the President‟s action, the President may frame his
„satisfaction‟ even on the receipt of information from the Union Council of Ministers and without a report from the
Governor.
The power conferred by Article 356 is a conditional power: it is not an absolute one. The existence of relevant
material is a precondition to the formation of satisfaction. In the State of Rajasthan Case (1977) the Supreme Court
made it clear that “The satisfaction of the President is a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Article
Corresponding Author:- Dr. R. Bagri
120
Address:- Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science, Ram Lal Anand
College, University of Delhi, India.
ISSN: 2320-5407 Int. J. Adv. Res. 10(09), 120-121
356, Clause (1) and if it can be shown that there is no satisfaction of the President at all, the exercise of the power
would be constitutionally invalid.”
In the S.R. Bommai Case (1994) the Supreme Court also held, “The Court will not go into the correctness of the
material or its adequacy. Its enquiry is limited to see whether the material was relevant to the action” The exercise of
the power is made subject to the approval by both the Houses of Parliament. Clause (3) is both a check on the power
and a safeguard against abuse of power.
Clause (I) of Article 356 requires the President to be satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of
the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. There is no explanation given in
the Constitution about the situation of failure of constitutional machinery in a State. However, a very specific and
categorical answer is contained in Article 365 which says that when a State fails to comply with the Union‟s
directions (under Articles 256 and 257), 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 the Constitution. The
non-compliance or violation of the Constitution should be such as to lead to or give rise to a situation where the
government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India.
Since State Governor cannot himself take any action of the nature contemplated by Article 356(1), he reports the
matter to the President and it is for the President to be satisfied on the basis of the said report or otherwise. In fact,
the President, under the Constitution, being what may be called a Constitutional head, is obliged to act upon the aid
and advice of the Council of Ministers [whose aid and advice is binding upon him by virtue of clause (I) of Article
74]. However, the President may send this advice to the Council of Ministers for its reconsideration. But the
President must act according to the advice tendered after such reconsideration by the Council of Ministers [Article
74(1)]. The satisfaction referred to in Article 356(1) really means the satisfaction of the Union Council of Ministers
with the Prime Minister as its head. The advice tendered by the Council of Ministers under Article 74 (1) to the
President shall not be required into in any Court [Article 74(2)])
On the contrary, the Supreme Court made it clear in the SR. Bommai case (1994) that Article 74 (2) incorporating
the Union Council of Minister's advice to the President in relation to the imposition of President‟s Rule in a State is
not a bar against the judicial scrutiny of the material on the basis of which the President had arrived at his
„satisfaction‟. The Supreme Court held that “Since reasons would form a part of the advice tendered to President, the
Court would be precluded from calling for their disclosure but Article 74 (2) is no bar to the production of all the
material on which the ministerial advice was based.”108 For instance, President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam (2005), refused
to disclose the letter, in which the then President, K.R. Narayanan, had given advice to the Council of Ministers
headed by AR. Vajpayee (NDA) on the widespread communal riots in Gujarat consequent upon the Godhra Carnage
(February 2002), in view of the confidentiality of advice under Article 74 (2). The UPA Government did not take
strong steps for disclosing K.R. Narayanan‟s letter. This is not justified.‟
Conclusion:-
It is indeed difficult, nor is it fitting, to list what is going on which might emerge and which would be involved
inside statement (1) of Article 356. It would be more fitting to manage substantial cases as and when they emerge.
MV. Pylee noticed, "What are the elements of such a circumstance? Except if these are explicitly definite, the
dubiousness will proceed and it will undoubtedly be taken advantage of to suit the political convenience of the Party
in the power at the Centre."
References:-
1. S. R. Bo mma i V s. Unio n o f I nd ia, Al l I nd ia Repo rt er , 1994, S upr eme Co urt , p. 1928.
2. St at e o f Ra ja st ha n vs. Unio n o f I nd ia, AI R, 1977, S upr eme Co ur t , Vo l. 64, p. 1362.
3. S. R. Bo mma i vs. Unio n o f I nd ia, o p. cit . , p. 1932.
4. Go ver nme nt o f I nd ia ( 1991) , Ar t ic le 74 ( 1) and ( 2) , T he Co nst it ut io n o f I nd i a, Leg is lat ive
Depar t me nt : New De lhi, p. 20.
5. S. R. Bo mma i V s. Unio n o f I nd ia, Al l I nd ia Repo rt er , 1994, S upr eme Co urt , p. 192 8.
121
