President Rule (Article 356)

Meaning of President Rule

President’s Rule refers to the suspension of a state government and the imposition of direct rule of the Centre. The central government takes direct control of the state in question and the Governor becomes its constitutional head. The Vidhan Sabha is either dissolved or prorogued. Such a situation forces the Election Commission to conduct a re-election within six months.

Procedure for President's rule in a state

Article 356 of the Constitution of India gives the President of India the power to impose this rule on a state on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers. 

Constitutional Basis for President Rule:

• Article 355: It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.
• Article 365: If the state government fails to comply with those directions, it is a violation of Article 365 by that state, and the President may impose Article 356 on that state and assume his rule.

There are some conditions that the President has to consider before imposing the rule:

• If the President 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.
• The state government is unable to elect a leader as chief minister within a time prescribed by the Governor of that state.
• There's a breakdown of a coalition leading to the chief minister having a minority support in the House, and the CM fails to prove majority in the given period of time.
• Loss of majority in the Assembly due to a vote of no-confidence in the House.
• Elections postponed on account of situations like natural disasters, war or epidemic.

Manner of imposition and duration of the President’s rule in a state

The steps of the procedure that are followed in the imposition of the President’s rule in a state are mentioned below:

• First, the violation of Article 365 has to be proven for the imposition of the President’s rule in a state.
• Such a situation has to be looked into, and the President has to be satisfied that invoking Article 356 is expedient.
• The President, when satisfied, issues a proclamation of a State Emergency.
• Such a proclamation to be implemented has to be approved by the Parliament of India.
• It has to be approved by both the Houses of Parliament within two months of issuance by Simple majority.
• In case the Lok Sabha is not in session or is dissolved, and the proclamation is approved by the Rajya Sabha, the proclamation continues till 30 days from the re Constitution of the Lok Sabha. 
• When the proclamation is approved by the Parliament, it can remain active for 6 months. This period can be further extended up to three years in phases of 6 months where approval has to be obtained from the Parliament in every phase. This 3-year extension limit was introduced through the 44^th Constitutional amendment. Such an extension has to be backed by strong reasoning and justification. Before the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, the maximum period up to which the President’s rule can be imposed was for one year. 

Duration of the President's rule

Proclamation of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution stands for six months. This timeframe can be extended up to three years, in phases. President's Rule can be revoked at any time by the President and this does not require Parliament's approval.

According to the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, President's rule can only be extended over a year every 6 months under the following conditions:

• The Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be conducted in the state concerned.
• There is already a national emergency throughout India or in the whole or any part of the state.

Option for the elected representatives of the state:

In case President’s Rule has been evoked because of a breakdown of coalition or a hung Assembly, it is not the end of the road for any political party. With the Assembly in suspended animation, stakeholders can approach the Governor any time with the required proof of support to prove majority on the floor of the House. The EC notification on the election is treated as the new Assembly having been constituted.

Consequences of the President’s rule

Mentioned below are the consequences that follow after the implementation of the President’s rule in a state: 

• The governor of such a state is made the constitutional head of the state. 
• The Vidhan Sabha of such a state is either dissolved or prorogued.
• The State is run by the central government and central administration.
• The Election Commission is then required to conduct re-election for the formation of a new state government for the state within 6 months. 
• Though such imposition does not affect the general public of the state directly, it affects them in a way of disrupting public good since no major legal or administrative changes can be brought in the state.
• No new policies can be formed during the President’s rule in a state.
• No new laws can be made by passing a bill in the state legislature during the President’s rule in a state. 
• Pending public and state welfare policies remain pending during this period of the President’s rule.

Case laws related to President Rule:

SR Bommai Case:

• The majority enjoyed by the Council of Ministers must be tested on the grounds of the House.
• The centre must give a warning to the state before imposing the President’s rule in the state and also give a one-week time to respond.
• The President must not dissolve the Assembly in such a state or take action under Article 356 (3) unless it is expedient to do so. 
• Article 356 can only be invoked for the breakdown of constitutional machinery as under Article 365 and not otherwise.

The Andhra Pradesh government case [CM Jagan Mohan Reddy vs. the judges (Andhra Pradesh High Court)]:

• In 2020, the Andhra Pradesh High Court took Suo moto cognizance to conduct an inquiry into the breakdown of constitutional machinery by the Andhra Pradesh government. The Governor was of the opinion that the government needed to be dismissed and the President’s rule should be implemented. The case reached the Supreme Court of India where it was observed that the Andhra Pradesh High Court made a case of judicial overreach and it was arbitral.