Why is it in the news?
1. After the resignation of Manipur Chief Minister N Biren Singh, the Centre clamped President’s Rule in Manipur on 13th February 2025. It must be noted that Manipur has been under ethnic violence for the last three years. The state government was under attack from all quarters because of its mishandling of the situations arising out of tug of war between Meitei and Kuki communities. This is the 11th time that Manipur was put under President’s rule. However, the assembly has not been dissolved. It has been kept under suspended animation. It means that the assembly can be revived whenever it becomes possible to form a popular government after revoking the President's rule.
Three types of Emergencies in the Constitution of India
1. The President can declare three types of emergencies under article 352, 356 and 360. Under article 352, the President can declare a national emergency on the whole India or a part of the territory on account of external aggression, war and armed rebellion.
2.Under article 356, the President can clamp the President’s rule in a state if he is satisfied that state is not being run according to the provisions of our constitution.
3. Under article 360, the President can proclaim a financial emergency when the financial stability of our country is at stake.
Provisions of President’s rule upon state
1. Under article 356 of our constitution, the President is empowered to proclaim a state emergency or President’s rule over a state, if he is satisfied that the state is not being run in accordance with the provisions of the constitution and that the state machinery has broken down.
2.It must be noted that after the proclamation of the President's rule in a state, the Parliament must ratify the proclamation within two months. The President can impose emergency on a state for six months but it can be extended to three years with the repeated parliamentary approval by simple majority of either House. However, after the first year the renewal of emergency can take place if an emergency has been declared in the country or the state or the election commission gives the certificate to the effect that an election can not be held in that state.
3. If the state emergency is required to be extended for more than three years, this can be done by constitutional amendments. This has been done in the case of Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab, when the President's rule continued for three years.
4. During a state emergency, the President takes over the entire work of the state executive and the Governor administers the state in the name of the President. The assembly can either be dissolved or it can be kept in suspended animation. During a state emergency, the Parliament is empowered to make laws with regard to the state list.
5. The state emergency can also be promulgated under article 365, if the particular state is not functioning according to the direction given by the Indian Government. However, after one year it can be extended only if a national emergency has been clamped or the Election Commission is of the view that an election cannot be conducted in that state.
6.However, the President cannot assume any of the powers vested in a High Court during a state emergency.
What are the circumstances when President rule can be imposed ?
1. Article 356, does not list the various specific circumstances under which the President’s rule can be imposed. It has been left to the judgement of the President to satisfy himself that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. It should be noted that the President's rule has been imposed 135 times so far. While in some cases, there were valid reasons, in other cases, the President’s rule was imposed due to political vendetta. However, we can arrive at different circumstances when the Centre was forced to clamp the President's rule over the state. These are : -
Political instability/ Hung Assembly- Bihar was put under President’s rule in 2005 when no party secured a majority in the assembly election. The assembly was dissolved and the President’s rule was imposed in 2005. Similarly, in 2013, Jharkhand was put under President’s rule because the coalition government collapsed.
Law & Order situation - Because of Babri Masjid demolition and widespread communal riots, the state government of UP was dismissed and President’s rule was clamped. In 2001, Manipur was brought under President’s rule because of severe ethnic violence and insurgency.
Militancy - Punjab was put under President’s rule between 1983 and 1985 because of Khalistani movement and widespread terrorism. Similarly, J & K had to undergo continued six years from 1990 to 1996 and again from 2019 to 2024 under President’s rule because of militancy and Pakistan sponsored terrorism within the state.
Break up of coalitions of parties - The coalition of BJP and PDP collapsed on account of growing violence in Kashmir. In 2007, the JDS-BJP coalition in Karnataka collapsed because JDS refused to transfer the Chief Minister’s post to the BJP as per the power sharing agreement. The BJP withdrew support and the government collapsed. In 2019, BJP-Shiv Sena split over power sharing. Shiv Sena demanded the Chief Minister’s post which the BJP refused and so the President’s rule was imposed on 12th November 2019 in Maharashtra. In 2013, the JMM-BJP coalition Government collapsed and so Jharkhand was kept under the President’s rule between 2013 to 2014.
Resignation of Chief Minister - In 1989, S R Bommai had to resign because the majority of ruling party MLAs defected. The Chief Minister was not allowed a floor test. In 2025, the Chief Minister N Biren Singh had to resign because he had lost majority in the BJP legislative party in Manipur Assembly.
Lack of unanimity among MLAs to choose leader / internal differences in the ruling party - In 1951, the Chief Minister of Punjab had to resign because of internal differences within the ruling party and so the President had to clamp President’s rule.
Continued public agitations - Assam was kept under President’s rule between 1979-80 because of continued agitation on the issue of illegal migration.
Political vendetta - The Janata Government in 1977 dismissed 9 Congress ruled state governments alleging that they have lost the confidence of people. In 1980, when Congress returned to power, it paid in the same coin by dismissing 9 opposition ruled state governments on similar grounds.
Continued insurgency in the border states of J & K, Punjab, Mizoram, Manipur, Nagaland, Tripura - Forced the Central Government to clamp President’s rule on different occasions to run state governments according to the provisions of the constitution.
Communal tension - In 1993, the states of UP, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan were put under President’s rule on account of widespread communal violence arising out of Babri Masjid demolition.
Misuse of the provision for political reasons - In 1959, the first elected Communist Government in Kerala was dismissed and President’s rule was imposed. Similarly, in 1967 and 1969, the United Front Governments of West Bengal were dismissed because of political interference by the Centre. In 1994, S R Bommai Government was dismissed on the ground that it had lost the majority in the assembly but the Chief Minister was not allowed for floor test.
Breakdown of constitutional machinery - Nagaland was put under President’s rule in 1975 and 1992 because of the ongoing insurgency.
President’s rule imposed due to violation of article 365 - The Centre Government imposed President’s rule over Rajasthan, (1957), Punjab (1951 and 1966), Andhra Pradesh (1954), Nagaland (1975), Karnataka (1971) and Manipur (2001) when centre’s directives were flouted by respective governments.
Landmark judgement in the case of S R Bommai vs the Union of India
1. In 1994, the Supreme Court gave a landmark judgement. Because of this judgement the frequency of the President's rule became less. For example, between 1950-1994, the President’s rule was imposed 100 times, an average of 2.5 times a year. After the judgement, since three decades, the President’s rule has been imposed 30 times or about once a year. Since 2014, the President’s rule has been imposed 11 times. Of these, the court has struck down the proclamation twice in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. The lesser frequency of President’s rule over states was on account of the judgement in SR Bommai case. A nine bench of the Supreme Court of India held that President’s Rule is subject to judicial review and that the Governor’s report is not final. The state legislature must be given a chance to prove its majority on the floor of the House. The President's rule must be approved by the Parliament within two months. If the President’s rule is imposed arbitrarily, the court can restore the dismissed government. The court emphasised that the states have autonomy and the union cannot dismiss state governments at will. Thus, the Supreme Court strengthened the concept of federalism and tried to balance between the Centre and states. It set a legal precedent whereby a floor test was made mandatory before dismissing a state government.
Conclusion
Article 356 has been the most misused article by the Centre. In maximum cases, the Centre Government dismissed opposition ruled state governments on account of political vendetta. The S R Bommai case put a break upon the discretionary and dictatorial attitudes of the Central Government, thereby, making the enforcement of Article 356 and 365 tough. No arbitrary decisions can be taken by the Central Government henceforth, fearing judicial review by the higher judiciary. However, the situation in the border states/ union territories is different where there is still continued militancy and terrorist threats and both these articles are quite useful to tackle internal disturbances.
No comments:
Post a Comment