Source: Indian Express 

Introduction 

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution provides for the imposition of President's Rule, whereby the Union government assumes direct control of a state when the constitutional machinery in that state fails. This extraordinary power, while necessary for maintaining constitutional governance, has been subject to significant judicial scrutiny and constitutional safeguards, particularly following the landmark S.R. Bommai judgment of 1994. The provision enables the President, upon receiving the Governor's report, to assume control if satisfied that the state government cannot function under constitutional provisions. 

How Has President's Rule Been Implemented Across India? 

• The frequency and duration of President's Rule varies significantly across India, with a total of 134 impositions spread across 29 states and Union Territories since the Constitution came into effect in 1950. 
• Manipur and Uttar Pradesh share the record for most frequent impositions, with President's Rule being implemented 10 times each, highlighting the recurring political instability in these states. 
• Jammu and Kashmir holds the record for the longest cumulative duration under President's Rule, spending over 12 years (4,668 days) under central control, primarily due to militant activities and security challenges. 
• Punjab ranks second in terms of total duration, having spent more than 10 years (3,878 days) under the President's Rule, with most instances occurring during periods of separatist movements and law and order crises. 
• Puducherry presents a unique case study, having spent over 7 years (2,739 days) under President's Rule, with its most recent imposition occurring in 2021 after the Congress government lost a confidence vote. 
• The implementation pattern of the President's Rule has evolved significantly post-1994, following the landmark S.R. Bommai judgment, which established stricter guidelines and judicial oversight. 
• Political instability, usually manifesting through collapsed coalition governments, defections, or loss of majority in state assemblies, has been the most common trigger for imposing the President's Rule. 
• The frequency of President's Rule impositions has shown a marked decrease in recent decades, reflecting both greater political stability and increased judicial scrutiny of such decisions. 
• The historical pattern reveals that smaller states and Union Territories have been more susceptible to President's Rule, often due to their more volatile political environments and smaller legislative assemblies making governments more vulnerable to collapse. 

How Did S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) Transform the Legal Framework of President's Rule? 

• The landmark case S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) fundamentally transformed the legal framework governing President's Rule, establishing that the power under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. 
• The nine-judge Supreme Court bench unanimously established that courts can examine Presidential proclamations for:  
  • Illegality 
  • Malafide intent 
  • Extraneous considerations 
  • Abuse of power 
  • Fraud 
• While courts cannot examine the correctness of the President's subjective satisfaction, they can review whether the material provided to the President was relevant and sufficient to justify the proclamation. 
• Key Case Laws and Principles: 
  • State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977):  
    • First significant case examining the scope of Article 356 
    • Court held that judicial review was limited but possible in cases of mala fide exercise of power 
  • S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):  
    • Established that state legislatures would only be suspended, not dissolved, until parliamentary approval 
    • Required parliamentary approval within two months for continuation of President's Rule 
    • Without approval, the dismissed government would be automatically revived 
  • Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006):  
    • Reinforced Bommai principles 
    • Held that Article 356 cannot be used to prevent post-election government formation 
    • Emphasized floor test as the proper method to determine majority 
• Constitutional Safeguards Established: 
  • Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy's opinion in Bommai emphasized:  
    • States are not mere appendages of the Centre 
    • Federal structure must be preserved 
    • Courts should interpret laws to protect states' powers 
  • The Supreme Court established following prerequisites for valid imposition: 
    • Objective material indicating state government's failure 
    • No alternative measures available 
    • Last resort when all other options are exhausted 
  • Post-Bommai Impact:  
    • Significant decrease in frequency of President's Rule 
    • Greater emphasis on federal autonomy 
    • Stronger judicial oversight of Centre's decisions 
    • Requirement for more substantial justification for imposition

What is Article 356 of Indian Constitution?

• Constitutional Foundation: 
  • Article 356 provides for President's Rule when state constitutional machinery fails 
  • It falls under Part XVIII of the Constitution (Emergency Provisions) 
  • It can be invoked either through Governor's report or through other sources 
• Triggering Mechanism: 
  • Requires President's satisfaction that state government cannot function per Constitution 
  • President must receive either:  
    • A report from the state Governor, or  
    • Information from other sources deemed reliable 
• Presidential Powers Under Article 356(1): 
  • Can assume all or any functions of the State Government 
  • Can take over powers exercisable by the Governor 
  • Can declare Parliament's authority over state legislative functions 
  • Can make necessary incidental and consequential provisions 
• Key Limitations: 
  • Cannot assume powers of the High Court 
  • Cannot suspend constitutional provisions relating to High Courts 
  • Any proclamation must be laid before both Houses of Parliament 
• Duration and Extension: 
  • Initial validity for two months without parliamentary approval 
  • Requires approval from both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha to continue 
  • Can be extended for six months at a time 
  • Maximum duration of three years with proper parliamentary approval 
• Special Requirements for Extension Beyond One Year: 
  • National Emergency must be in operation, or 
  • Election Commission must certify that conducting state elections is difficult 
  • Requires special parliamentary resolution 
• Parliamentary Oversight: 
  • Both Houses must approve within two months 
  • Special provisions exist if Lok Sabha is dissolved during the two-month period 
  • Council of States' approval can temporarily extend the proclamation 
• Revocation Powers: 
  • President can revoke or vary the proclamation at any time 
  • Subsequent proclamation can modify previous ones 
• Exception Clause: 
  • Special provision was made for Punjab (1987 proclamation) 
  • This case allowed extension beyond the normal three-year limit

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's intervention through the S.R. Bommai case has established crucial judicial precedents governing the implementation of Article 356, making it subject to judicial review and establishing clear parameters for its exercise. This judicial oversight, coupled with the requirement for parliamentary approval, has created a more balanced framework for implementing President's Rule, resulting in its decreased frequency in recent decades. The doctrine has evolved from being a potentially unilateral executive decision to one requiring substantial justification and adherence to established constitutional principles.