State Emergency or Article 356 of the Constitution of India provides the Indian President, the power to suspend state government and impose President’s rule on any state in the country “if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”.
Many times this article has been misused by many Governors and it has been a sad history many times in Indian history.
Also read|
All About Article 19 (1) of the Indian Constitution: Fundamental Rights
Constitution of India Sources: What did we borrow & from where?
Provisions Under Article 356
Article 356 of the Constitution of India gives the President of India the power to suspend state government and impose the President’s rule in any state of the country if “if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”.
⇒ Upon the imposition of this rule, there would be no Council of Ministers. The Vidhan Sabha is either dissolved or prorogued.
⇒ The state will fall under the direct control of the Union government, and the Governor will continue to head the proceedings, representing the President of India – who is the Head of the State.
⇒The imposition of the President’s rule requires the sanction of both the houses of Parliament.
⇒ If approved, it can go on for a period of six months. However, the imposition cannot be extended for more than three years and needs to be brought before the two houses every six months for approval.
Revocation:
⇒ A proclamation of President’s Rule may be revoked by the President at any time by a subsequent proclamation.
⇒ Such a proclamation does not require parliamentary approval.
What is Anti-Defection Law? 10th Schedule of The Constitution of India Explained
Background of Article 356
India borrowed this provision from Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. This provision faced strict opposition from the freedom struggle leaders then and this forced the British government to suspend it. However, this provision was incorporated in the Constitution for the preservation of democracy, federalism, and stability in the post-independent era.
| Pakistan has also borrowed this provision from Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. |
Political Misuse of Article 356
⇒ In its 2015 report, Sarkaria Committee noted that since independence, it has been used over 100 times. In almost all cases it was used for political considerations rather than any genuine problem.
⇒ Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi used Article 356 for 27 times to remove majority governments on the ground of political stability, absence of clear mandate or withdrawal of support, etc.
⇒ In 1977, the Janata government removed nine state Congress governments, when they formed the government for the first time.
⇒ Manipur witnessed the most frequent application of Article 356 due to the deeply fragmented internal politics of the state, as well as long periods of violence.
⇒ The politically crucial states of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, with their fragmented polity, have been on the centre’s radar.
Case of AP High Court: December 2020
Issue: The Supreme Court has stayed an Andhra Pradesh High Court order intending to embark on a judicial enquiry into whether there is a constitutional breakdown in the State machinery under the Jagan Mohan Reddy government, requiring a declaration of President’s rule.
Explanation: Article 356 of the Constitution deals with the topic of “constitutional breakdown” or the failure of constitutional machinery. As per the article, invoking comes under the prerogative of the executive and not the judiciary. The Andhra Pradesh High Court cannot enquire and recommend President’s rule in a State.
S.R. Bommai Vs. Union of India Case and Article 356
The Issue:
S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal government in Karnataka between August 13, 1988, and April 21, 1989. His government was dismissed on April 21, 1989, under Article 356 of the Constitution and President’s Rule was imposed, in what was then a most common mode to keep Opposition parties at bay. The dismissal was on grounds that the Bommai government had lost the majority following large-scale defections engineered by several party leaders of the day. Then-Governor P. Venkatasubbaiah refused to give Bommai an opportunity to test his majority in the Assembly despite the latter presenting him with a copy of the resolution passed by the Janata Dal Legislature Party.
Bommai went to court against the Governor’s decision to recommend President’s Rule. First, he moved to the Karnataka High Court, which dismissed his writ petition. Then he moved to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Judgement:
The case took almost five years to see a logical conclusion and on March 11, 1994, a nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued the historic order, which in a way put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State governments under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions.
Guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court
In the said case, the SC laid down certain guidelines so as to prevent the misuse of Article 356 of the constitution.
⇒ The majority enjoyed by the Council of Ministers shall be tested on the floor of the House.
⇒ The centre should give a warning to the state and a time period of one week to reply.
⇒ The court cannot question the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President but it can question the material behind the satisfaction of the President.
⇒ Under Article 356(3) it is the limitation on the powers of the President. Hence, the president shall not take any irreversible action until the proclamation is approved by the Parliament i.e. he shall not dissolve the assembly.
⇒ Article 356 is justified only when there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery and not administrative machinery
⇒ Article 356 shall be used sparingly by the centre; otherwise, it is likely to destroy the constitutional structure between the centre and the states.
The recent Andhra Pradesh HC observation violated the Basic Structure doctrine of the Constitution. This is a serious encroachment on the powers of the executive as enumerated under the Constitution and is thus violative of the doctrine of separation of powers.
The Supreme Court's nullification of the AP High Court order would ensure that all legal adventures concerning the separation of powers in the State are minimized. However, significant constitutional amendments are needed to avoid repeated misuse of Article 356.
Comments
All Comments (0)
Join the conversation