How is President's Rule imposed?
What is President's Rule?
Article 356 is invoked to impose President's Rule in a State after removing the State government. While there are duties cast on federal governments in the U.S. and Australia to protect the States, their constitutions do not have any provision for removing State governments. Under Article 356, the President (central government) may take over the governance of a State when it cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The President can make such a proclamation based on a receipt of report from the Governor of a State or otherwise. The latter situation may arise under Article 365 due to failure of a State to comply with or give effect to any directions of the Union government.
The proclamation of President's Rule must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months from the date of its issue by a simple majority. Once approved by Parliament, the President's Rule continues for six months, from the date of proclamation, unless revoked earlier. It can be extended for a further period of six months at a time by an approval of both the Houses of Parliament by a simple majority. The President's Rule cannot extend beyond a period of three years in total.
What has been the history?
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during the Constituent Assembly debates wished that Article 356 would never be called into operation and that it would remain a dead letter. However, it has been a travesty that Article 356 was misused on several occasions, removing elected governments that enjoyed majority in the States, violating constitutional principles and federalism. Reasons varied from loss in Lok Sabha elections to deterioration of law and order. When it comes to the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly after imposition of President's Rule, there has been no uniformity in the approach. More than constitutional principles, it was political expediency that drove such decisions in the past.
Various Governors have adopted different approaches in similar situations in regard to the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. The advice of a Chief Minister, enjoying majority support in the Assembly, is normally binding on the Governor. However, where the Chief Minister had lost such support, some Governors have refused to dissolve the Legislative Assembly on his/her advice, while others in similar situations, accepted the advice, and dissolved the Assembly. The Assembly was dissolved in Kerala (1970) and in Punjab (1971) on the advice of the Chief Minister whose claim to majority support was doubtful. However, in more or less similar circumstances in Punjab (1967), Uttar Pradesh (1968), Madhya Pradesh (1969), and Orissa (1971), the Legislative Assembly was not dissolved immediately based on the outgoing Ministry's advice. Attempts were made to install alternative Ministries.
What have the courts ruled?
The Supreme Court and High Courts during the first four decades after Independence refrained from interfering in the decision of the Centre to impose President's Rule in States. It was only after a categorical judgment of the Supreme Court in the S. R. Bommai case (1994), that misuse of Article 356 has been restricted. The court in this judgment held that Article 356 should be imposed only in the event of a breakdown of constitutional machinery as distinguished from an ordinary breakdown of law and order. It also held that imposition of President's Rule is subject to judicial review and should not be misused for political reasons. It further ruled that till Parliament approves the imposition of President's Rule, the Legislative Assembly should not be dissolved, and can be only kept under suspended animation.
The higher judiciary has been a watchdog, since the S. R. Bommai case, against the arbitrary use of Article 356. Notably in the case of Bihar (2005), Uttarakhand (2016) and Arunachal Pradesh (2016), the courts have struck down the wrongful imposition of President's Rule.
When can it be revoked?
If President's Rule is imposed because of the lack of a government with majority, then usually fresh elections are held. After elections, the President's Rule is revoked and a popularly elected government takes over the governance of the State. Manipur was placed under President's Rule in February 2025 due to the deteriorating security situation and consequent political developments in the State. The assembly, whose five-year term ends in March 2027, has been kept under suspended animation. Considering that more than 18 months are left before the assembly term expires, it would be prudent to install a government that enjoys the confidence of the assembly. More importantly, it should enjoy the confidence of different sections of society of the State.
Rangarajan. R is a former IAS officer and author of 'Courseware on Polity Simplified'. He currently trains at Officers IAS Academy. Views expressed are personal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
APCC prez meets Rahul, raises concern over proposed Siang project
Itanagar: Arunachal Pradesh Congress Committee (APCC) president Bosiram Siram on Thursday raised concerns over the proposed 11,000-MW Siang Upper Multipurpose Project (SUMP). Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He warned that the mega dam, with a proposed height of more than 300 metres, will lead to the displacement of nearly 1.5 lakh indigenous tribal people and the submergence of over 27 villages in the Siang region. During a meeting with leader of opposition in Lok Sabha, , in New Delhi, Siram emphasized that the project posed a grave threat to the ecology, cultural heritage and livelihoods in Siang, Upper Siang, East Siang and adjoining districts. He said the dam would result in the permanent loss of ancestral homes, jhum fields (shifting cultivation lands), paddy lands, and community infrastructure and would also impact sacred cultural landmarks such as Kekar Monying. Siram alleged that surveys and feasibility studies for the project were being carried out forcibly, often with the deployment of Central Armed Police Forces. He argued that this violated provisions under Article 371(H) of the Constitution, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA), 1996, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). He further said Arunachal Pradesh was situated in seismic zone-V, the highest-risk earthquake category, and the construction of such a massive structure significantly increases the risk of landslides, erosion, and earthquake-induced disasters. While clarifying that Congress was not opposed to development or dam construction in general, Siram said the objection was specifically to mega dams of abnormal height that threatens the very survival and identity of indigenous communities. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now He urged Rahul Gandhi to adopt a balanced and people-centric approach to the issue. According to a party statement, Rahul Gandhi assured Siram that the matter will be seriously examined, describing it as an issue of national importance. Siram also used the opportunity to advocate for the modification of Article 371(H) of the Statehood Act of Arunachal Pradesh. He sought to bring it at par with the provisions granted to Nagaland and Mizoram under Article 371(A) and 371(G), respectively. He argued that the current lack of legislative autonomy over land and natural resources has deprived Arunachal's indigenous people of ownership rights over water, forest and land. Furthermore, the APCC chief raised the issue of the New Pension Scheme (NPS) and demanded the reintroduction of the Old Pension Scheme (OPS) to ensure post-retirement security for state govt employees.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Schools' closure a political decision, says Akhilesh
1 2 Lucknow: Describing BJP govt's move to shut 26,000 schools and merge another 5,000 as a political decision, SP chief Akhilesh Yadav on Thursday said the schools being closed are the ones where polling was held in previous elections and SP had won. Akhilesh described the decision as against the Constitution. "The right to education is enshrined in the Constitution. BJP govt is depriving the people of their constitutional right" he told reporters at the Parliament House complex. He said it was the responsibility of govt to ensure that every child had free and easy access to education and schools should be near their homes. "BJP govt is not bothered about education but more concerned about where the polling stations would come up," Akhilesh said. They (BJP govt) are shutting schools for the sake of votes, he said. The former UP CM said all projects initiated during the SP govt to improve the education system in the state were either abandoned or shut by the BJP govt. "Like the Sanskriti schools in Delhi, a Sanskriti school was set-up in Lucknow during the SP govt. But BJP closed it," he said. He said BJP was biased against the PDA and it was for this reason that SP functionaries have launched PDA Pathshala in villages where schools have been closed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo 'BJP wants to whip up emotions: Akhilesh Lucknow: The BJP govt does not work on economy but on emotions. It wants to whip up emotions to win elections and not concerned about the well being of people, said Akhilesh Yadav. He said lakhs of Indians are shifting abroad every year but govt has done nothing to check that. "Many people fled India after taking heavy loans, pushing banks towards bankruptcy. The BJP govt has outsourced jobs to end reservation," he said. On the US imposing heavy tariffs on India, Akhilesh questioned the claims of the BJP about the 11-year-old friendship between PM Modi and president Donald Trump. 'PDA pathshalas force govt to recall order on merger of schools'' Lucknow: Akhilesh on Thursday said volunteers having started PDA Pathshalas across the state forced the UP govt to recall its order on merger of 5,000 schools. "Recalling its decision on the merger of schools is a mega victory of PDA Pathshalas. Right to education cannot be and will never get compromised. It is a moral defeat of the BJP which is anti-education," Akhilesh posted on X.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
SC slams WB's 10-yr exclusionary norm of continuous teaching
. NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has slammed the West Bengal govt's decision to deny teachers who had joined universities in West Bengal from other states the benefit of extension of retirement age from 60 to 65 years on the parochial ground that they had not taught in state-domiciled institutions for a continuous period of 10 years. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Mishra said it can never be the intention of a state to deprive teachers of the benefit of retirement age extension despite their having requisite experience from universities outside its jurisdiction. "Classifying employees based on past teaching experience from universities within or outside West Bengal, particularly at the verge of retirement, after having served for decades lacks nexus and discernible object," the bench said. Writing the judgement, Justice Narasimha said, "When such decisions are subjected to strict scrutiny in judicial review, they unfortunately expose themselves as parochial, potentially undermining our resolve of fraternity". He added, "Constitutional courts must be vigilant and identify such decisions, embedded in the nooks and crannies of public administration and set them aside, for they have the potentiality of triggering similar actions by other States and their Instrumentalities". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Libas Purple Days Sale Libas Undo The bench said it is easy to adjudicate a dispute on the constitutional scale of equality, which can be asserted by a citizen as a fundamental right. However, the principle of fraternity, one of the founding goals of the Constitution, rarely asserts itself. "It is the duty of the constitutional court to recognise its erosion, even in the bylanes of public administration and to restore the essential 'We' to ensure the unity and integrity of the nation," said Justice Narasimha.
