GS Paper 2
Syllabus: Polity
Source: Indian Express, First Post
Context: Recently Prime Minister mentioned the misuse of Article 356 in the parliament.
- Commonly known as President’s Rule, Article 356 allows the president to assume any and all functions of the state.
About Article 356:
- Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935
- Also called a ‘State Emergency’ or ‘Constitutional Emergency’.
- It deals with the ‘failure of constitutional machinery in the state’ and allows the president to assume any and all functions of the state.
- It can be imposed for six months at a time for a maximum duration of three years.
- After six months, Parliament’s approval is needed to reimpose President’s Rule.
- In 1978, the 44th Amendment to the Constitution (1978) was made.
- This stated that President’s Rule cannot be extended beyond one year unless:
- In case of a national emergency
- The Election Commission of India certifies that it is necessary due to difficulties in conducting Assembly polls.
After President’s Rule is imposed, the governor of the state continues administering the state on behalf of the president. The governor can also take aid from the chief secretary and any other officials.
Issues with the use of Article 356:
- Overuse and abuse in a politically motivated manner, especially by the central government to dismiss state governments run by opposition parties.
- Subversion of democracy: It suspends the democratic process in a state
- Lack of accountability: The frequent use of Article 356 has been seen as an infringement on the federal principles of the Indian Constitution and a diminution of the powers of the states.
- Negative impact on governance: It can lead to administrative and governance breakdowns in a state
Recommendations to avoid misuse:
- The Sarkaria Commission in 1983 recommended it only be used in extreme cases.
- The Supreme Court in the landmark 1994 Bommai vs Union of India case, dealing with Article 356 outlined strict guidelines on dealing with the dismissal of a state government.
- For one, it made it mandatory for a no-confidence motion to be passed in the House.
- It also made President’s Rule subject to judicial review.
- The court held that Article 356 can be invoked in situations of the physical breakdown of the government or when there is a ‘hung assembly’, but that it cannot be used without giving the state government a chance to either prove its majority in the House or without instances of a violent breakdown of the constitutional machinery.
