President's Rule under Article 356

The most common trap is confusing the initial duration, the maximum extension, and the conditions for extension beyond one year. Students often incorrectly remember the initial period as one year instead of six months, or forget that extensions beyond one year require either a national emergency or a certification from the Election Commission that elections cannot be held.

President's Rule under Article 356 addresses the specific situation where a state government is unable to maintain constitutional governance. While other provisions deal with external aggression (National Emergency) or financial instability (Financial Emergency), Article 356 is uniquely designed to address internal breakdowns of constitutional machinery within a state. For example, if a state government deliberately refuses to implement a Union law, this would constitute a failure of constitutional machinery, justifying the invocation of Article 356.

President's Rule under Article 356 doesn't address situations of general maladministration or policy disagreements between the Centre and the State, unless these lead to a breakdown of constitutional machinery. Critics argue that it can be misused to dismiss democratically elected governments for political reasons, undermining federalism. The S.R. Bommai case (1994) attempted to address this by limiting the grounds for its imposition and subjecting it to judicial review, but concerns about its potential for misuse persist.

A notable example is the imposition of President's Rule in Arunachal Pradesh in 2016. The Governor's actions leading up to the proclamation were criticized by the Supreme Court, which highlighted the importance of impartiality. The court eventually restored the Congress government, demonstrating the judiciary's role in checking potential misuse of Article 356. This case illustrates how the Governor's report, while influential, is not the final word and is subject to judicial scrutiny.

Without Article 356, a state facing political instability would likely experience prolonged periods of uncertainty and potential administrative paralysis. The absence of a functioning government could lead to a breakdown in law and order, delays in essential services, and a lack of accountability. While alternative mechanisms like forming a new coalition government might exist, they may not be viable or effective in all situations. Article 356 provides a mechanism for the Union government to step in and ensure constitutional governance is maintained, protecting the interests of ordinary citizens.

The strongest argument is that it violates the principles of federalism by allowing the central government to unduly interfere in the affairs of states and potentially destabilize democratically elected governments. A response could be that while the potential for misuse exists, the S.R. Bommai case has introduced safeguards to prevent arbitrary application. Furthermore, Article 356 is intended as a measure of last resort to prevent complete constitutional breakdown, ensuring the protection of citizens' rights and the maintenance of constitutional order.

Reforms could focus on strengthening the role of the Inter-State Council in deliberating on situations that might warrant President's Rule, ensuring greater consultation with states. Another area for reform is establishing clearer guidelines for the Governor's role in assessing the situation in a state, emphasizing impartiality and objectivity. Finally, exploring alternative mechanisms for addressing political instability within states, such as empowering local bodies or promoting greater inter-party dialogue, could reduce the reliance on Article 356.

Many democracies have mechanisms for the central government to intervene in subnational units, but the scope and grounds for intervention vary significantly. Some federations, like the United States, rely more on judicial intervention and federal laws to ensure state compliance with the constitution. Others, like Germany, have provisions for federal intervention in cases of state non-compliance, but these are generally subject to stricter procedural safeguards and judicial review than Article 356. A key difference is the relatively broad interpretation of 'failure of constitutional machinery' in India, which has historically allowed for greater central intervention compared to other democracies.

The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 stipulated that President's Rule could only be extended beyond one year if a national emergency is in operation in India, or if the Election Commission certifies that holding elections in the concerned state is not possible. This is crucial because it prevents indefinite extensions of President's Rule based on flimsy grounds. UPSC often tests on constitutional amendments and their specific impacts, making this a high-yield fact.

President's Rule (Article 356) addresses the failure of constitutional machinery in a state, while a National Emergency (Article 352) addresses threats to the security of India or any part of it (war, external aggression, or armed rebellion).

The Supreme Court held that the President's power to impose President's Rule is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The court also ruled that the state legislature should not be dissolved until Parliament approves the proclamation. These holdings significantly curtailed the arbitrary use of Article 356 by making it more difficult for the central government to dismiss state governments for political reasons. The burden of proof now rests on the Centre to justify the imposition.

• •Judicial Review: President's decision is no longer immune from court scrutiny.
• •Legislative Approval: State assembly cannot be dissolved prematurely.
• •Burden of Proof: Centre must justify the need for President's Rule.

President's Rule was imposed in Jammu and Kashmir due to the collapse of the coalition government between the PDP and BJP, leading to a situation where no stable government could be formed. This instance was particularly noteworthy because it preceded the abrogation of Article 370 and the reorganization of the state into two Union Territories. The imposition of President's Rule provided the central government with the necessary authority to implement these significant constitutional changes.