IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE

THE CONTEXT: On February 13, 2025, President’s Rule was imposed in Manipur following Chief Minister N. Biren Singh’s resignation and the BJP’s failure to find a consensus leader amid ongoing ethnic violence between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities since May 2023. This marks the 11th instance of President’s Rule in Manipur, highlighting constitutional provisions under Article 356 to address governance failure and maintain stability.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS AND BASIS:

• • President’s Rule, also referred to as a “State Emergency” or “Constitutional Emergency,” is imposed when the governance in a State cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It is invoked under Article 356, fulfilling the Union’s obligations under Article 355, which mandates the Centre to:
    • Protect States from external aggression and internal disturbances.
    • Ensure governance in accordance with constitutional provisions.

KEY FEATURES OF PRESIDENT’S RULE

• • Executive Takeover: The President assumes all executive functions of the State government. The Governor acts on behalf of the President, administering the State with assistance from the Chief Secretary or advisers appointed by the Centre. The State Council of Ministers is dismissed, and the Governor exercises executive powers under the Centre’s direction.
  • Legislative Powers: The powers of the State legislature are transferred to Parliament. Parliament can legislate matters on the State List for that State. Under Article 357, Parliament may delegate legislative powers to the President or other authorities. In Jammu and Kashmir (1990–1996), during prolonged militancy and separatist movements, Parliament exercised legislative powers while maintaining governance continuity.
  • Judicial Independence: The powers and functioning of the High Court remain unaffected during President’s Rule. This ensures that judicial oversight continues to safeguard constitutional rights and address grievances. The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994) clarified that judicial independence must remain intact even under President’s Rule to prevent arbitrary misuse.
  • Approval by Parliament: The proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months by a simple majority. If not approved, the proclamation ceases to operate. Parliamentary approval ensures democratic accountability and prevents unchecked executive action.
  • Duration: It is initially valid for six months and can be extended up to three years with conditions. A national emergency is in operation in the country or part of the State. The Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be conducted in the State due to extraordinary circumstances. In Punjab (1987–1992), the President’s Rule was extended beyond one year due to terrorism and law-and-order challenges, and elections were deemed infeasible at that time.
  • Impact on Fundamental Rights: Unlike a national emergency (Article 352), the President’s Rule does not suspend fundamental rights. Citizens retain their constitutional freedoms under Articles 19, 20, and 21.

TRIGGERING MECHANISMS FOR IMPOSING PRESIDENT’S RULE

• • Governor’s Report: A report from the Governor indicating failure of constitutional machinery is a primary basis for invoking Article 356. The Governor assesses whether governance in the State is being carried out in accordance with constitutional provisions. In Manipur (2025), the Governor reported political instability following ethnic violence and failure to form a government after Chief Minister N. Biren Singh’s resignation.
  • Non-compliance with Union Directions (Article 365): If a State fails to comply with directions issued by the Union under constitutional provisions, it can lead to the President’s Rule. In Rajasthan (1967), Article 365 was invoked when the State failed to comply with Union directives related to governance issues.

JUDICIAL SAFEGUARDS: KEY SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

• • R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994): The S.R. Bommai case is a watershed moment in Indian constitutional jurisprudence that redefined the scope and limitations of Article 356. The Supreme Court laid down several safeguards to prevent the arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule:
    • Judicial Review: The Court held that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. Courts can examine whether the proclamation was based on relevant material or issued with mala fide intent.
    • Last Resort Doctrine: Article 356 should be invoked only after exhausting all alternatives to restore governance in the State. The Centre must issue a warning to the State government before invoking President’s Rule.
    • Parliamentary Approval: Assemblies cannot be dissolved without prior approval from Parliament. Dissolution should follow only after Parliament ratifies the proclamation.
    • Distinction Between Law and Order vs Constitutional Breakdown: President’s Rule must address failures of “constitutional machinery” and not ordinary law-and-order issues. Political instability or lack of majority must be substantiated with evidence of governance failure.
    • Impact on Federalism: The judgment reinforced cooperative federalism, ensuring that States are not treated as mere appendages of the Centre.

FREQUENCY AND TRENDS OF PRESIDENT’S RULE:

SUSPENDED ANIMATION VS DISSOLUTION:

COMPARISON OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY WITH STATE EMERGENCY:

CRITICISM AND CHALLENGES OF PRESIDENT’S RULE:

• • Political Misuse of Article 356: Article 356 has historically been used as a political weapon to dismiss opposition-led State governments. It undermines the spirit of cooperative federalism by centralizing power in the hands of the Union government. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar hoped Article 356 would remain a “dead letter,” warning against its potential misuse for political gains.

• • • 1977: Morarji Desai dismissed nine Congress-ruled States after the Janata Party’s victory in the general elections.
    • 1980: Indira Gandhi dismissed nine Janata Party-ruled States after returning to power.
    • 1992: The dismissal of BJP-led governments in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh following the Babri Masjid demolition.

• • Ambiguity in Criteria for Invoking Article 356: The Constitution does not define “failure of constitutional machinery,” leaving it open to subjective interpretation by Governors and the Union government. This ambiguity has led to arbitrary and politically motivated proclamations.

• • • Arunachal Pradesh (2016): President’s Rule was imposed based on a controversial Governor’s report, which the Supreme Court later struck down as mala fide.
    • Bihar (2005): The Supreme Court declared the dissolution of the Assembly unconstitutional due to the lack of material evidence supporting governance failure.

• • Impact on Federalism: The frequent imposition of the President’s Rule undermines India’s federal structure by dismissing democratically elected governments. The Centre’s dominance over States contradicts the principle of “federal supremacy with checks,” as envisioned by the Constitution. The Punchhi Commission (2010) highlighted that over-centralization through Article 356 weakens democratic institutions at the State level.
  • Suspended Animation Debate: While suspended animation is a practical mechanism to avoid premature dissolution, it lacks explicit mention in the Constitution.It creates ambiguity about governance continuity during the President’s Rule.

• • • In S.R. Bommai (1994), the Supreme Court allowed suspended animation as a temporary measure but cautioned against its misuse.
    • Former Lok Sabha Secretary General P.D.T. Acharya questioned its validity, arguing that if legislative powers are transferred to Parliament, keeping an Assembly inactive serves no purpose.

• • Delayed Judicial Review: Significant political damage may already have occurred by the time courts intervene to review proclamations under Article 356.

• • • In Arunachal Pradesh (2016), judicial review came after political dynamics had shifted irreversibly.
    • In Bihar (2005), elections were already underway when the Supreme Court declared dissolution unconstitutional.

THE WAY FORWARD:

• • Codifying Clear Guidelines for Invoking Article 356: Enact a law or constitutional amendment to define “failure of constitutional machinery” with specific criteria. The Sarkaria Commission (1988) recommended codifying the grounds for invoking Article 356 to ensure transparency. The Punchhi Commission (2010) emphasized that Governors’ reports must be detailed, evidence-based, and free from political bias.
  • Strengthening Federalism Through Cooperative Mechanisms: Strengthen mechanisms like Inter-State Councils (Article 263) and the Zonal Councils to address disputes between the Centre and States. Institutionalize regular dialogues between the Union government and State governments to resolve governance crises without resorting to President’s Rule. The Sarkaria Commission advocated for greater use of cooperative mechanisms as an alternative to Article 356.
  • Fast-Track Judicial Review Mechanisms: Establish dedicated fast-track benches in High Courts and the Supreme Court for reviewing proclamations under Article 356 within a fixed timeframe (e.g., one month). Mandate immediate judicial scrutiny of Governors’ reports recommending President’s Rule.
  • Periodic Parliamentary Oversight During Extended Periods: Mandate periodic reviews by Parliament every three months during extended periods of President’s Rule. It requires detailed reports from the Union government justifying the continuation of the President’s Rule beyond six months.
  • Objective Governors’ Reports Subject to Judicial Scrutiny: Mandate that Governors’ reports include detailed evidence supporting claims of governance failure. Consult with stakeholders such as opposition parties and civil society groups. The Punchhi Commission recommended making Governors’ reports more transparent and accountable.
  • Promoting Electoral Reforms for Political Stability: Encouraging pre-poll alliances through incentives like additional campaign finance support. Implementing stricter anti-defection laws under the Tenth Schedule to prevent horse-trading. Strengthening internal democracy within political parties to reduce factionalism.

THE CONCLUSION:

While constitutionally necessary in extraordinary circumstances, the imposition of the President’s Rule must align with the principles of cooperative federalism and democratic accountability, ensuring its use as a last resort after exhausting all alternatives. Codifying clear criteria for its invocation, strengthening judicial review mechanisms, and fostering intergovernmental dialogue can transform Article 356 into a robust tool for governance stability while safeguarding India’s federal ethos and democratic integrity.

UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTION:

Q. Account for the legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Governments since mid 1990s. 2023

MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:

Q. The landmark S.R. Bommai judgment redefined the scope of Article 356, ensuring its use as a last resort while safeguarding federal principles. Discuss the implications of this judgment on Centre-State relations with relevant case studies.

SOURCE:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/manipur/when-can-presidents-rule-be-imposed-explained/article69223369.ece