PRESIDENTS RULE

Explanation: The President of India is empowered to proclaim emergency,

when he is satisfied that "the governments of a respective State do not work in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The President can also
impose President's rule in a state when its political machinery has failed or if
there is a threat to the principles of democracy, or if, there is no majority to any
political party in the state legislature to form a stable government.

Sarkaria Commission's Report cautioned against the use of Art. 356, and stated
that Article 356 should be used sparingly, as a last measure, when all available
alternatives had failed to pre vent or rectify a breakdown of constitutional
machinery in a state.

The report recommends appropriately amending Article 356 to include in a

proclamation material facts and grounds on which Article 356(1) is invoked.
However, the recommendation was not taken forward by the legislature. It is
interesting to notes that during Constituent Assembly Debate, it was suggested
that Art 356 could be abused for political purpose.

On 20th April, 1989 third Presidential Rule was proclaimed in Karnataka, the
same was challenged and on March 11, 1994 in the "Assembly dissolution
Case", the Supreme Court held in its historic judgement held that the
proclamation of President's rule in Karnataka was "Unconstitutional”1

Reflection on Pre SR Bommai

Pre SR Bommai judgement the stance of the Court regarding judicial review of
President’s Rule under Art. 356 was that he court

1
cannot go into the correctness or adequacy of the facts and the circumstances on
which the satisfaction of the
Central Government is based unti and unless it is mala fide or is based on
wholly extraneous and irrelevant
Grounds. In the words of Justice P.N. Bhagwati2:
"The satisfaction of the President under Article 356 is a subjective one and
cannot be tested by reference to any
objective tests or by judicially discoverable and manageable standards."

Supreme Court in SR Bommai Case:

The views expressed by the various judges of the Supreme Court in this case
concern mostly with the recom mendation of the Sarkaria Commission and the
judgment deserves mention:

1. Article 356 of the constitution confers a power upon the president to be

exercised only where he is satisfied that a situation has arisen where the
government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of
the constitution.

2. The power conferred by Article 356 upon the president is a conditioned

power. It is not an absolute power.

3. The President shall exercise it only after the proclamation is approved by

both the houses of parliament under Clause (3) and not before. Until such
approval the President can only suspend the legislature.

4. In case both houses of parliament dis approved the proclamation, the

proclamation lapses at the end of the two-month period. In such a case,
government which was dismissed revives the legislative assembly which may
have been kept in suspended animation gets reactivated.
2
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, 1977 SCC (3) 592
 5. However, if the proclamation is approved by both the houses within two
months the dismissed government does not revive on the expiry of period of the
proclamation or on its revocation, similarly if the Legislative assembly has been
dissolved after the approval under Article 356(3).

6. The proclamation under Article 356(1) is not immune from judicial review.
The Supreme Court or the High Court can strike down the proclamation if it is
found to be mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds.

7. If the Court strikes down the proclamation, it has the power to restore the
dismissed government to office and revive and reactivate the Legislative
Assembly wherever it may have been dissolved or kept under suspension.

Post SR Bommai Case:

Case of Arunachal Pradesh (2016)

Fact of the case of Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker and Others 3 : was that
Nabam Tuki won election in 2011, with full majority of 47 seats out of 60. His
brother was elected as speaker. Chief Minister dropped his health minister
Kalikho Pul by reshuffling the cabinet in 2014, around April, 2014, Ex. Health
Minister Kalikho Pul had charged Congress Government with financial
mismanagement in NDRF and SDRF relief funds. He was expelled from party
citing anti party activities. Kalikho Pul met with BJP leaders and 21 MLAs of
Congress rebelled against their party. So, BJP had now 21 Ex Congress + 11
MLAs +2 independent MLAs including the deputy speaker. The Congress
Speaker disqualifies the 14 rebels on basis of 10th schedule of anti defection
law (14 rebel Congress MLAs in Arunachal disqualified the times of India)
Congress then gave notice for resolution of removal of deputy speaker. After
the disqualification, Governor summoned the Assembly without consultation of
incumbent Government under Article 174 (1) and sent the message as speaker
3
2016 SCC OnLine SC 694
removal being first priority to Assembly. He advanced the Assembly to
December 16 though the session was to commence from January 14. Then,
because Assembly was locked by Tuki Government, Assembly proceedings
happened in parallel building to Assembly where 33 MLAs unanimously voted
Kalikho Pul as next CM of Arunachal Pradesh. And a Congress rebel was
appointed deputy speaker who then quashed the order to disqualify the 14 rebel
Congress man. Guwahati High court stayed the Governor's order on stay till
February 1 and also stayed the 14 rebel’s disqualification matter till next
hearing. While bunch of petitions and counter petitions have led this matter to
SC, which in turn has referred the matter to a Constitutional bench is debating
matters of speaker and Governor's. While case of 14 rebels disqualified is still
yet to be resolved by the courts. President's Rule is recommended by cabinet
and Central Government imposed President's Rule in the State. Governor of the
State appointed by BJP Government wanted to advance the house sitting,
deputy speaker to preside and have the Congress Government to lose vote of
confidence which was BJPs plan. Congress hit back the plan with locking the
Government but Assembly presiding proceedings happened anyway in near
hotel. It did not happen inside the Assembly.

Judgement: The Supreme Court stated, censoring the Governor for 'humiliating
the elected Government of the day", Supreme Court restored the Nabam Tuki
Government in Arunachal Pradesh, and declared as "unconstitutional " all
decisions of Governor that had first led to imposition of President's Rule in the
State and later formation of a new Government led by the ruling party's
breakaway faction. The order is welcomed. It will curb an undemocratic,
authoritarian trend through the 1970s and 1980s, when the Centre used Article
356 to topple elected State Governments on its whim. The return of
Government with strong majority at the Centre has culminated in the extension
of its country wide reach and attempts to bring under its flag all outposts that
stand in opposition. The timely intervention of judiciary made the imposition of
Article356, President's Rule, contingent on a Constitutional breakdown, subject
to judicial review. The Supreme Court has proved a worthy foil to executive
excess once again. The historic judgement will check the Centre's tendency to
abuse Governor's powers and President' Rule to topple opposition State
Governments. The Supreme Court held, while restoring the previous
Government, that the Assembly was not dissolved immediately, but only kept
under suspended animation until both houses of parliament approved President's
Rule. It also demanded a floor test to ascertain Government's majority. Thus,
the Supreme Court reinstated the sanctity of floor test. Supreme Court ordered
Arunachal Pradesh Governor to respond why he recommended President's Rule
in the sensitive border state. But later, the Supreme Court recalled the order
saying it made a mistake by not realising that Governors have completely
immunity and are not answerable to courts for acts done under in their official
capacity.