In India, President's rule is the suspension of state government and imposition of direct Union government rule in a state. Under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, if a state government is unable to function according to Constitutional provisions, the Union government can take direct control of the state machinery. Subsequently, executive authority is exercised through the union-appointed governor, who has the authority to appoint other administrators to assist them. The administrators are usually nonpartisan retired civil servants not native to the state.
When a state government is functioning correctly, it is run by an elected Council of Ministers responsible to the state's legislative assembly. The council is led by the chief minister, who is the chief executive of the state; the Governor is only a constitutional head. However, during President's rule, the Council of Ministers is dissolved, later on vacating the office of Chief Minister. Furthermore, the Legislative Assembly is either prorogued or dissolved, necessitating a new election.
Prior to 2019, the constitution of the state of Jammu and Kashmir had a similar system of Governor's rule, under its Section 92. The state's governor issued a proclamation, after obtaining the consent of the President of India allowing Governor's rule for up to six months after which President's rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India could be imposed. After the revocation of Article 370, President's rule applies to Jammu and Kashmir under section 73 (since Article 356 of Constitution of India does not apply to union territories) of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
Following the 1994 landmark judgment in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India restricted arbitrary impositions of President's rule.
Chhattisgarh and Telangana are the only states where the President's rule has never been imposed so far.Das, Anjishnu (29 August 2023). "13 years in J&K, 10 times in Manipur, UP: History of President's Rule" . Indian Express. Retrieved 2 May 2024.
Imposition in state In practice, President's rule has been imposed in a State under any one of the following different circumstances: A state Assembly is unable to elect a leader as Chief Minister for a time prescribed by the Governor of that State, at the Will of Governor. Breakdown of a coalition leading to the Chief Minister not having majority support in the Assembly; and the Chief minister fails/will definitely fail to prove otherwise, within a time prescribed by the Governor of that state. Loss of majority in the Assembly due to a vote of no-confidence in the house. Elections postponed for unavoidable reasons like war, epidemic, pandemic or natural disasters. On the report of the Governor of the State that the State's constitutional machinery or legislature fails to abide by Constitutional norms.
If approved by both Houses, President's rule can continue for 6 months. It can be extended for a maximum of 3 years with the approval of the Parliament done every 6 months; however in extreme rare cases it can be extended repeatedly if the Election Commission of India recommends that elections are not possible. If the Lok Sabha is dissolved during this time, the rule is valid for 30 days from the first sitting of the new Lok Sabha provided that this continuance has already been approved by Rajya Sabha. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a new provision to put a restraint on the power of Parliament to extend the President's rule in a state. According to this provision, the president's rule can only be extended over a year, under the following conditions: There is already a national emergency throughout India, or in the whole or any part of the state. The Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be conducted in the state.
President's rule can be revoked at any time by the President and does not need Parliament's approval.
Until the mid-1990s, President's rule was often imposed in states through the abuse of authority of Governors who were in collusion with the Union government. The Supreme Court of India in March 1994 established a precedent in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, due to which such abuse has been drastically reduced.
Imposition in Union territories with a Legislative Assembly
Article 356 is not applicable to Union territories, so there are many ways by which President's rule can be imposed in different Union territories with a Legislative Assembly.
Jammu and Kashmir Until the revocation of special status and bifurcation into two Union territories, President's rule applied after the application of Governor's rule under the erstwhile state's constitution for 6 months.
After the revocation and bifurcation, the reorganized union territory of Jammu and Kashmir is subject to the section 73 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, which is used to impose President's rule as the Article 356 is not applicable to Union Territories. The provision states:
Delhi In NCT of Delhi, President's rule is applied on the basis of Article 239AB of the Constitution of India (as the Article 356 is not applicable to Union Territories) which reads thus:
Puducherry In the union territory of Puducherry, President's rule is applied on the basis of Article 51 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963. Which thus reads
Misuse and criticism Article 356 gives wide powers to the Union government to assert its authority over a state if civil unrest occurs and the state government does not have the means to end it. Though the purpose of this article is to give more powers to the Union government to preserve the unity and integrity of the nation, it has often been misused by the ruling parties at the centre, who used it as a pretext to dissolve state governments ruled by political opponents. Thus, it is seen by many as a threat to the federal state system. Since the adoption of the Indian constitution in 1950, the Union government has used this 134 times to dissolve elected state governments by imposing President's rule.
The article was used for the first time in Punjab on 20 June 1951. It was next used in the state of Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) in 1953, and then in 1959 to dismiss the Communist Party of India–led government in Kerala in the aftermath of anti-communist protests. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was common for the Union government to dismiss state governments led by opposition parties. The Indira Gandhi regime and post-emergency Janata Party were noted for this practice. Indira Gandhi's government between 1966 and 1977 is known to have imposed President's rule 39 times in different states.. Similarly, the Janata Party which came to power after the emergency issued President's rule in 9 states which were ruled by Congress.
The practice was limited only after the Supreme Court established strict guidelines for imposing President's rule in its ruling on the S. R. Bommai v. Union of India case in 1994. This landmark judgement has helped curtail the widespread abuse of Article 356. The judgement established strict guidelines for imposing President's rule. Subsequent pronouncements by the Supreme Court in Jharkhand and other states have further limited the scope for misuse of Article 356. Only since the early 2000s has the number of cases of imposition of President's rule has been drastically reduced.
Article 356 has always been the focal point of a wider debate of the federal structure of government in Indian polity. During debates in the Constituent Assembly of India regarding emergency provisions of the Constitution of India, B. R. Ambedkar argued for their inclusion under the assumption "that such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead letter". The Sarkaria Commission Report on Centre-State Relations 1983 has recommended that Article 356 must be used "very sparingly, in extreme cases, as a measure of last resort, when all the other alternatives fail to prevent or rectify a breakdown of Constitutional machinery in the state".
List of instances
+List of instances of President's rule being applied State Term Date of imposition Date of revocation Duration Reason(s) to impose the President's rule Andhra Pradesh 1
Breakdown of law & order due to Jai Andhra Agitation, in CM P. V. Narasimha Rao's tenure.Narayana Rao, K. V. (August 1977). "Mulki agitation in the Telangana and Andhra regions". Internal migration policies in an Indian state: A study of the Mulki rules in Hyderabad and Andhra (PDF). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Center for International Studies. p. 63. Retrieved 2 May 2024. 2
Political impasse following the resignation of CM Kiran Kumar Reddy and several other congress party legislators from the Government as well as the Party, in protest against Indian Parliament passing Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill to bifurcate united Andhra Pradesh and create a separate Telangana state. President's rule revoked from Telangana areas on 2 June 2014 and bifurcated Andhra Pradesh areas on 8 June 2014. President rule reimposed unlawfully by the President after the two months time limit without taking approval of the Parliament under Article 356. Andhra State 1
Loss of majority."When Centre stepped in" . Indian Express. 17 March 1970. p. 7. Retrieved 2 May 2024.Dua, Bhagwan D. (Spring 1977). Presidential rule in India: A study in crisis politics (PhD thesis). University of Alberta. Retrieved 2 May 2024. Arunachal Pradesh 1
Loss of majority following defections in a fluid political environment during Janata party rule at the centre.Chawla, Prabhu (30 November 1979). "President's rule brings to an end political melodrama in Arunachal Pradesh" . India Today. Retrieved 2 May 2024. 2
26 days 21 Congress MLAs joined hands with 11 of the BJP and two Independents, making the contemporary government a minority. Supreme Court declared the imposition of president rule as ultra vires and reinstated the dismissed Congress led government in the state. In a landmark judgement, it found fault with the unconstitutional role played by the Governor by interfering in the activities of legislatures and speaker of the Vidhan Sabha Assam 1
'Assam Agitation' against illegal foreign nationals staying in Assam started to take roots under the leadership of the All Assam Students' Union (AASU). The violence fuelled by United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) resulted in breakdown of law and order. 2
Congress (I) government led by Anwara Taimur representing immigrant minorities collapsed following intensification of 'Assam Agitation' against illegal foreign national staying in Assam.Sen, Sumanta (31 July 1981). "Assam set for another spell of political uncertainty after fall of Congress(I) ministry" . India Today. Retrieved 2 May 2024. 3
Congress (I) government led by Keshab Gogoi representing ethnic Asom people collapsed following continued violence in Assam.Sen, Sumanta (15 April 1982). "Assam: Congress(I) ministry led by Keshab Gogoi falls, President's Rule to return" . India Today. Retrieved 2 May 2024 4
Government dismissed in spite of AGP CM Prafulla Mahanta enjoying majority support in Assembly. The dismissal was triggered apparently by the threat to internal security due to banned organisation ULFA's activities.Sengupta, Uttam (15 December 1990). "Assam crisis puts government in catch-22 situation" . India Today. Retrieved 2 May 2024. During the president's rule, Operation Bajrang was launched to flush out ULFA militants.Ahmed, Farzand (31 March 1991). "Three months after army moved in, Operation Bajrang makes little headway and ULFA remains potent force" . India Today. Retrieved 2 May 2024. Bihar 1
Loss of majority following defections in a fluid political environment.Siwach, J. R. (1979). Politics of President's Rule in India . Simla: Indian Institute of Advanced Study. OCLC 7583232. Retrieved 2 May 2024. 2