Constitutional Law on State Emergency in India

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Jaiverdhan Singh- A032170124036, Dr Chhavi Ahlawat
Nitish Aggarwal- A032170124007,
Disha Garg- A032170124175
 Index
1. Abstract
2. Introduction
3. Article Mentioned
4. Essentials to Apply
5. Process of Declaration
6. Significant Examples
7. Landmark Judgement
8. Comparison with Other Quasi-Federal States
9. Recommendations from Legal Experts
10. Sarkaria Commission
11. Research Paper
12. Appraisal
13. Conclusion
14. References
Abstract
This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution,
which empowers the central government to impose President's Rule in states when
constitutional governance is deemed ineffective. It begins with an introduction to the
concept of State Emergency, outlining its purpose and mechanisms. The paper details the
legal framework of Article 356, including the grounds for declaration, essential conditions
for application, and the process involved. Significant historical instances of its invocation
are examined, including notable cases like the dismissal of the Kerala government in
1959 and the extensive use during Indira Gandhi's tenure (1975-1977). The landmark
judgment in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) is discussed, highlighting its
implications for judicial review and the limits on presidential powers. A comparative
analysis with other quasi-federal states, such as Canada and Australia, underscores the
unique challenges posed by India’s federal structure. The paper also incorporates expert
recommendations for reforming the application of Article 356 to prevent political misuse
while ensuring effective governance during crises. Ultimately, it emphasizes the need for
a balanced approach that respects both central authority and state autonomy within India's
democratic framework.
I. Introduction
The concept of State Emergency, also known as President's Rule, is a critical mechanism
within the Indian Constitution that allows the central government to assume control over a
state government when it is deemed unable to function according to constitutional provisions.
This provision is primarily outlined in Article 356, which aims to ensure the continuity of
governance and maintain constitutional order during times of political instability or failure of
the constitutional machinery in a state.

II. Article
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution provides the framework for declaring a State
Emergency. The key points include:
- Grounds for Declaration: The President can proclaim a State Emergency if he or she
believes that the governance of a state cannot be conducted according to the Constitution.
This determination is often based on reports from the Governor or other credible sources.
- Duration and Approval: The proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament
within two months. If not approved, it lapses after this period. The emergency can be
extended for a maximum period of three years, with parliamentary approval required every
six months.
- Powers Conferred: During a State Emergency, the President can assume all or any functions
of the state government, including legislative powers, allowing Parliament to make laws for
the state.
 III. Essentials to Apply
To invoke Article 356, several essentials must be met:
1. Inability to Govern: There must be clear evidence that the constitutional machinery in the
state has failed.
2. Governor's Report: A report from the Governor indicating such failure is crucial.
3. Parliamentary Approval: The proclamation must receive approval from both Houses of
Parliament within two months.

IV. Process of Declaration

The process for declaring a State Emergency involves:
1. Assessment: The President assesses the situation based on reports from the Governor or
other credible sources.
2. Proclamation: If deemed necessary, a proclamation is issued under Article 356.
3. Parliamentary Approval: The proclamation must be laid before both Houses within two
months for approval.
4. Implementation: Upon approval, the President assumes control over state functions and
may legislate for the state.

V. Significant Examples
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows for the imposition of President's Rule in
states, has been invoked numerous times since its introduction. Here are some of the most
significant instances of its application:
1. Punjab (1951)
- Context: The first use of Article 356 occurred in June 1951 when the Punjab government
was dismissed due to concerns over law and order.
- Significance: This set a precedent for future applications of Article 356, establishing a
pattern for the central government to intervene in state governance.
2. Kerala (1959)
- Context: The dismissal of Kerala's first democratically elected communist government led
by E.M.S. Namboodiripad marked a significant political event. The central government, led
by Jawaharlal Nehru, cited concerns over land reforms and governance.
- Impact: This dismissal was notable as it was the first time a democratically elected
government was removed using Article 356, raising questions about federalism and political
autonomy.
3. Indira Gandhi's Era (1966-1977)
- Context: During Indira Gandhi's tenure, Article 356 was used extensively, with reports
indicating it was invoked approximately 39 times against various states.
- Examples: Notable instances include:
- Dismissals in several states following the imposition of a national emergency in 1975.
- The removal of governments in states like Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, often justified on
grounds of political instability or law and order issues.
4. Bihar (1989)
- Context: The Bihar government led by Jagannath Mishra was dismissed under Article 356
due to alleged breakdowns in law and order.
- Significance: This case led to the landmark Supreme Court judgment in S.R. Bommai v.
Union of India (1994), which established that proclamations under Article 356 are subject to
judicial review.
5. Uttar Pradesh (2002)
- Context: Following communal riots, President's Rule was imposed on the grounds that the
state government could not maintain law and order.
- Outcome: This instance highlighted the contentious nature of invoking Article 356 during
periods of political strife.
7. Uttarakhand (2016)
- Context: In March 2016, President's Rule was imposed amidst political turmoil when the
state government faced allegations of corruption and instability.
- Outcome: This decision was challenged in court but highlighted how Article 356 continues
to be a tool for political maneuvering.

VI. Landmark Judgment on the Issue

 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)
The case of **S.R. Bommai v. Union of India** (1994) is a significant landmark judgment
concerning Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the imposition of
President's Rule in states. This judgment played a crucial role in defining the limits and scope
of the President's powers under this article and curbing its misuse.
Facts of the Case
- Background: S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of Karnataka, leading a government
formed by the Janata Dal party. In April 1989, following allegations of losing majority
support due to defections, the Governor of Karnataka reported to the President that the
constitutional machinery in the state had broken down.
- Proclamation: Based on this report, President's Rule was imposed in Karnataka under
Article 356(1), and the state assembly was dissolved without giving Bommai an opportunity
to prove his majority in the assembly.
- Legal Challenge: Bommai challenged this proclamation in the Supreme Court, arguing that
he was not given a fair chance to demonstrate his majority and that the decision was
politically motivated.
Issues Raised
1. Justiciability: The primary issue was whether proclamations made under Article 356 were
subject to judicial review.
2. Scope of Presidential Powers: The court needed to determine if the President had
unfettered powers to impose President’s Rule or if there were limitations.
3. Validity of Proclamation: The court examined whether the proclamation was based on
relevant material and whether it was issued in good faith.
Judgment
The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on March 11, 1994, through a nine-judge bench,
which unanimously ruled on several key points:
1. Justiciability: The Court held that proclamations under Article 356 are justiciable, meaning
they can be challenged in court. This marked a significant shift from previous interpretations
that viewed such proclamations as beyond judicial scrutiny.
2. Judicial Review Scope: The Court established that it could review the material on which
the President based his satisfaction for imposing President's Rule. It could examine:
- Whether there was any material behind the proclamation.
- Whether that material was relevant.
- Whether there was any mala fide use of power.
3. Testing Majority: The judgment emphasized that the majority enjoyed by a government
must be tested on the floor of the house rather than solely based on the Governor's report.
4. Parliamentary Approval: The Court reiterated that any proclamation made under Article
356 must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months; otherwise, it would
lapse.
5. Guidelines for Future Use: The judgment laid down guidelines to prevent arbitrary use of
Article 356:
- The Centre should provide a warning to the state and allow time for a response before
imposing President’s Rule.
- The assessment of whether constitutional machinery has broken down should be based on
factual circumstances.
  State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India (1977)
In this case, the Union Home Minister of the Janta Party Government communicated on
17/04/1977 advising the State Government of U.P., Bihar, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh,
Himachal Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa, Punjab, and Rajasthan to notify their governors of
the dissolution of the legislative assembly and posing a threat to dissolve the legislature under
Article 356. This forced the state government to seek a fresh mandate due to the massive
defeat of the Congress Party in these nine states. The Supreme Court examined the matter
regarding the non-justiciability of the situation warranting invocation of Article 356.
 Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India
In the 2005 Bihar Legislative Assembly election, no party or coalition won a majority,
leading to President's Rule being imposed. The top two coalitions engaged in wrongful
practices, prompting the dissolution of the assembly. A Public Interest Litigation challenged
this decision in the Supreme Court, questioning the legality of the President's order. The case
of Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India focused on the interpretation of Article 356 of the
Indian Constitution. The dissenting judge highlighted the need for the President to uphold
constitutional principles in times of crisis. The majority judgment emphasized that the power
under Article 356 is not absolute, with the governor required to report any state failures to the
president. The case analyzed the delicate balance the governor must strike between upholding
the constitution and avoiding autocracy. Overall, Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India shed
light on the complexities surrounding the imposition of President's Rule and the governor's
crucial role in ensuring constitutional governance.

VII. Comparison with Other Quasi-Federal States

In comparison with other quasi-federal states like Canada and Australia:
- Canada- has provisions allowing federal intervention in provincial matters during crises but
operates with more checks on federal power compared to India's broad discretionary powers
under Article 356.
- Australia's Constitution- provides for federal intervention but requires more stringent
conditions than those prescribed in India, reflecting a more balanced federal structure.

IX. Legal Expert Recommendations

1. Judicial Oversight: Strengthening judicial review mechanisms to prevent arbitrary use of
Article 356.
2. Clear Guidelines: Establishing clearer guidelines for declaring State Emergencies to
minimize political misuse.
3. Decentralization: Encouraging greater decentralization and empowering local governments
to handle crises effectively without resorting to central intervention.

X.Sarkaria Commission
The Sarkaria Commission was led by Justice Ranjeet Singh Sarkaria and recommended using
Article 356 cautiously, only as a last resort after exploring all other options to resolve a state's
constitutional breakdown. It stated that Article 356 can be invoked if a state government acts
unconstitutionally or fails to comply with emergency instructions. The Commission
highlighted that invoking Article 356 to solve political issues is misuse and governors should
explore all alternatives before dismissing a government with majority support in the
Assembly. The Commission also recommended placing each proclamation before both
houses of Parliament promptly. However, it was criticized for not addressing the Union
Government's misuse of constitutional provisions and endorsing the Center's powers as vital,
overlooking flaws in the division of powers between the Union and states.

XI. Research Papers on Article 356

1. Title: President's Rule Under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution
- Author: Shashwat Kaushik
- Published on: iPleaders
- Date: February 19, 2024
- Summary: This paper discusses the objectives, proclamation, revocation, consequences,
and continuation of President's Rule under Article 356. It delves into the nature and scope of
the provision concerning landmark case laws, commission reports, and amendment acts. The
article also compares Article 356 with Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, and
provides a critical analysis of its current scenario.
2. Title: A Critical Analysis of Imposition of President’s Rule on States and its Impact on
Indian Federal Structure
- Author: Neha Uppin
- Published in: International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts (IJCRT)
- Volume/Issue: Volume 12, Issue 1
- Date: January 2024
- Summary: This research paper explores the constitutional intricacies surrounding Article
356, focusing on its practical aspects and instances of misuse. It assesses how the provision
has been used as a political tool to unseat governments and discusses its implications for
India's federal structure.
3. Title: A Critical Analysis of Emergency Powers Under Article 356 of Indian Constitution
- Author: Lumina L
- Published in: International Journal of Criminal, Common and Statutory Law
- Volume/Issue: Volume 4, Issue 1
- Date: 2024
- Summary: This paper offers an analysis of emergency powers under Article 356,
examining landmark cases and recommendations by law commissions. It aims to provide a
clearer understanding of the balance between centralized power and state autonomy in the
context of Indian governance.
4. Title: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India: Case Analysis
- Author: Shivani A.
- Published on: Legal Articles Blog
- Summary: This article provides a detailed analysis of the landmark case *S.R. Bommai v.
Union of India*, discussing its implications for the scope and limitations of Article 356. It
examines the judgment's impact on center-state relations and the principles governing the
imposition of President's Rule.

XII. Appraisal
The provisions under Article 356 serve as essential tools for maintaining constitutional order
during crises; however, their application has often been contentious and politically charged.
While designed to protect democracy and governance, there remains a risk of misuse for
political ends.

XIII. Conclusion
State Emergency provisions in India are crucial for ensuring governance during times of
crisis but require careful application and oversight to prevent abuse. Balancing federal
authority with state autonomy remains a challenge within India's quasi-federal structure,
necessitating ongoing legal scrutiny and reform to uphold democratic p ## Introduction

References:
[1] https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/emergency-provisions/print_manually
[2] https://blog.ipleaders.in/state-emergencies-fundamental-rights/
[3] https://www.centurylawfirm.in/blog/emergency-provisions-in-the-indian-constitution-an-
exhaustive-analysis/
[4] https://www.nextias.com/blog/emergency-provisions/
[5] https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/to-the-point/ttp-constitution-of-india/emergency
[6] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/how-supreme-court-judgment-checked-the-
misuse-of-president-s-rule-art-356-101710094868606.html
[7] https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/bommai-case/
[8] https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/explained-politics/pm-modi-indira-gandhi-
misused-article-356-8434716/
[9] https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-editorials/article-356/print_manually
[10] https://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2401759.pdf
[11] https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/article-356/
[12] https://www.criminallawjournal.org/article/74/4-1-15-798.pdf
[13] https://probono-india.in/research-paper-detail.php?id=511
[14] https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/how-supreme-court-judgment-checked-the-
misuse-of-president-s-rule-art-356-101710094868606.html
[15] https://ujala.uk.gov.in/files/ch11_1.pdf