0% found this document useful (0 votes)
37 views28 pages

Presidnet - S Rule

Uploaded by

Rudra Deva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
37 views28 pages

Presidnet - S Rule

Uploaded by

Rudra Deva
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 28

President's Rule

రాష్ట్రపతి పాలన
SR Bommai vs Union of India Case 1994
President's Rule–
President’s Rule implies the suspension of
a state government and the imposition of
President’s
direct rule of the Centre.
Rule
It is also known as ‘State Emergency’ or
‘Constitutional Emergency’.
The President’s Rule is imposed through
the invocation of Article 356 of the In States In Union
Territories
Constitution by the President on the
advice of the Union Council of Ministers.
Union Territories-
✓ Article 239 to 242 under Part VIII of the Indian
Constitution deals with the administration of Union
Territories.
✓ Every union territory is administered by the
President of India acting through an
administrator appointed by him.
✓ An administrator of a union territory is an agent of
the President and not head of state like a Governor
of the State.
*** 1. Ladakh 2. Jammu and Kashmir 3.
Chandigarh 4. Dadar& Nagar Haveli and Daman &
Diu 5. Puducherry 6. Lakshadweep 7. Andaman
and Nicobar 8. Delhi NCR
✓ The Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 enacted by the Parliament in accordance
with the provisions of Article 239A.
✓ The President can specify the designation of an administrator; it may be Lieutenant Governor or
Chief Commissioner or Administrator.
✓ The Union Territories of Puducherry (in 1963), Delhi (in 1992) and Jammu and Kashmir (in
2019) are provided with a legislative assembly and a council of ministers headed by a chief
minister.
✓ But, the establishment of such institutions in the union territories does not diminish the supreme
control of the President and Parliament over them.
✓ The Parliament can make laws on any subject of the three lists (including the State List) for the
union territories.
President’s Rule in Union Territory-
Provision in Case of Failure of Constitutional Machinery (as per the 1963 Act):
If the President, on receipt of a report from the Administrator of (the Union territory) or
otherwise, is satisfied,―
1. That a situation has arisen in which the administration of the union territory cannot be
carried on in accordance with the provisions of this act, or
2. That for the proper administration of the union territory it is necessary or expedient so to do,
The President may, by order, suspend the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act for such
period as he thinks fit, and make such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear to him
to be necessary or expedient for administering the Union territory in accordance with the provisions
of Article 239.
The notification of President’s Rule is notified by the Ministry of Home Affairs.
President’s Rule in a State-
✓ President’s Rule implies the suspension of a state government and the imposition of
direct rule of the Centre.
✓ It is also known as ‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency’.
Constitutional Provisions:
✓ The President’s Rule is imposed through the invocation of Article 356 of the
Constitution by the President on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers.
✓ Under Article 356, President’s Rule is imposed if the President, upon receipt of the
report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is 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.
44th Constitutional Amendment Act – National Emergency
1. Proclamation of Emergency can be issued only when the security of India or any part of its
territory is threatened by war or external aggression or by armed rebellion. Internal disturbance
not amounting to armed rebellion would not be a ground for the issue of a Proclamation.
2. Proclamation is issued only after due consideration, it is sought to be provided that an Emergency
can be proclaimed only on the basis of written advice tendered to the President by the Cabinet.
3. Any such Proclamation would be in force only for a period of six months and can be continued
only by further resolutions passed by the same majority.
4. The Proclamation would also cease to be in operation if a resolution disapproving the continuance
of the Proclamation is passed by Lok Sabha. Ten per cent. or more of the Members of Lok Sabha
can requisition a special meeting for considering a resolution for disapproving the Proclamation.
44th Constitutional Amendment Act –
✓ The President’s Rule is initially for a period of six months. Later, it can be extended for a
period of three years with parliamentary approval, every six months.
✓ The 44th Amendment to the Constitution (1978) brought in some constraints on the
imposition of the President’s Rule beyond a period of one year. It says that President’s
Rule cannot be extended beyond one year unless:
1.There is a national emergency in India.
2.The Election Commission of India certifies that it is necessary to continue the
President’s Rule in the state because of difficulties in conducting assembly elections to
the state.
S R Bommai vs Union of India (1994)
Theme: President's Rule, Centre state Relations , Federalism and Secularism
Supreme Court issued the historic order, which in a way put an end to the arbitrary
dismissal of State governments under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions.
The verdict concluded that the power of the President to dismiss a State government is not
absolute.
The verdict said the President should exercise the power only after his proclamation
(imposing his/her rule) is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Till then, the Court said, the President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly by
suspending the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Legislative Assembly.
S R Bommai vs Union of India (1994)
Power of PoI in declaring President’s Rule is
not absolute, Judicial review on the
intension of imposing President’s Rule
Secularism in Federalism is
India is a the basic
basic feature feature of
the Floor test is the litmus test for deciding the
Western vs majority in the Legislative Assembly.
Indian Constitution

Dissolution of Legislative Assembly only after


the approval of the proclamation by the
Parliament
Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court-
In the S.R. Bommai case, the SC laid down certain guidelines so as to prevent the misuse of Article
356 of the Constitution.
✓ The majority enjoyed by the Council of Ministers shall be tested on the floor of the House.
✓ Centre should give a warning to the state and a time period of one week to reply.
✓ The court cannot question the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President but it
can question the material behind the satisfaction of the President.
✓ Under Article 356(3) it is the limitation on the powers of the President. Hence, the president shall
not take any irreversible action until the proclamation is approved by the Parliament i.e. he shall
not dissolve the assembly.
✓ Article 356 is justified only when there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery and not
administrative machinery.
When can President's Rule be imposed on a state?
1. State Legislature is unable to elect a leader as Chief Minister
2. Collapse of a Coalition due to disagreements, parting ways within the members
3. Serious breakdown law and order
4. Elections postponed due to ineludible reasons
5. Loss of majority in the state assembly
6. Shoot up of insurgency or rebellion
Analysis of President’s Rule –
✓ Dr BR Ambedkar called it 'the death letter of Indian Constitution’.
✓ The rival parties running governments in various states were dissolved by those at the
Centre by making use of the Article.
✓ The dismissal of the EMS Namboodiripad-led Communist government in Kerala by
Jawaharlal Nehru in July 1959, and the 21 instances during the period 1975-1979 are
often considered as examples of the misuse of the President's Rule.
Political Misuse of Article 356
✓ In its 2015 report, Sarkaria Committee noted that since independence, it has been used
over 100 times. In almost all cases it was used for political considerations rather than any genuine
problem.
✓ Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi used Article 356 for 27 times to remove majority
governments on the ground of political stability, absence of clear mandate or withdrawal of
support, etc.
✓ In 1977, the Janata government removed nine state Congress governments, when they formed the
government for the first time.
✓ Manipur witnessed the most frequent application of Article 356 due to deeply fragmented internal
politics of the state, as well as long periods of violence.
✓ The politically crucial states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, with their fragmented polity, have been on
the center’s radar.
Recommendations/Judgments on President's Rule-
✓ The Administrative Reforms Commission (1968) recommended that the report of the
governor regarding the President's rule has to be objective and also the governor should
exercise his own judgment in this regard.
✓ The Rajamannar Committee (1971) recommended the deletion of Articles 356 and 357
from the Constitution of India. The necessary provisions for safeguards against arbitrary
action of the ruling party at the Centre under Article 356 should be incorporated in the
Constitution.
✓ The Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommended that Article 356 should be used in very
rare cases when it becomes unavoidable to restore the breakdown of constitutional
machinery in the State.
Recommendations/Judgments on President's Rule-
✓ S.R. Bommai Judgment (1994).
1. The Supreme Court enlisted the situations where the exercise of power under Article
356 could be proper.
2. One such situation is that of ‘Hung Assembly’, i.e. where after general elections to the
assembly, no party secures a majority.
✓ Justice V.Chelliah Commission (2002) recommended that Article 356 must be used
sparingly and only as a remedy of the last resort after exhausting all actions under Articles
256, 257 and 355.
✓ The Punchhi commission (2007) recommended that these Articles 355 & 356 be
amended. It sought to protect the interests of the States by trying to curb their misuse by
the Centre.
Way Forward-
Article 356 shall be used sparingly by the center; otherwise, it is likely to destroy the
constitutional structure between the center and the states.
Federalism is a two way road.
All The Best

You might also like