Page 1 of 8
European Journal of Business &
Social Sciences
Available at https://ejbss.org/
ISSN: 2235-767X
Volume 07 Issue 03
March 2019
Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 212
The Constitutional Provisions of President’s Rule under Article – 356
Dr. Sunil Kumar
Lecturer /Assistant Professor Political Science
DIET Madina (Rohtak)
E-mail- sunilkhokhar011@gmail.com
Abstract The administrative relations between Union and States operate in a manner
that Centre's supremacy is more than visible. During emergencies the federal
arrangements can be suspended and squeezed into a unitary operation. If and when any
State fails to comply with, or to give effect to, any direction given by the Union under
the provisions of the Constitution, the President could, under Article 356, conclude that
a situation had arisen in which the Government of the State could not be carried on in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Such a conclusion might lead to the
invoking of Article 356 and the promulgation of President's rule in that State. Under
Article 356, if the President, on receipt of a report from the government of otherwise, is
satisfied that the government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the constitution, the President may proclaim to take over the functions of
the State Government and powers of the Government and authorize the Parliament to
exercise the power of the State Legislature. The validity of a proclamation is limited to 6
months, but can be renewed by parliament up to a maximum period of one year. When
a proclamation of Emergency is in operation in the whole country or in a State or in any
part of it and the Election Commission certifies that there are difficulties in the way of
holding a general elections to Legislative Assembly of the State, the maximum Period of
President's rule can be extended even beyond on year. But in S.R. Bommai Case (1994),
the Supreme Court held that President's Rule under Article-356 can be judicially
reviewed.
Page 2 of 8
European Journal of Business &
Social Sciences
Available at https://ejbss.org/
ISSN: 2235-767X
Volume 07 Issue 03
March 2019
Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 213
Keywords: The Government of India Act-1935, Article-356. President's Rule, Governor's
Role, Judicial Review.
Introduction: The constitutional provision of Article-356, is inspired by section 93 of the
Government of India Act, 1935 which provided that if a Governor of a Province was
satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the Province cannot be
carried on in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, he could, by proclamation,
assume to himself all or any powers vested in or exercisable by a provincial body or
authority including the ministry and the legislature and to discharge those functions in
his discretion. The only exception was that under this section, the Governor neither
could nor encroach upon the powers of the High -court. It is alleged that the said two
provisions were incorporated in the Government of India Act, 1935 to meet certain
purposes and exigencies. This act contemplated, for the first time, delegation of certain
powers of governance to the ministries formed by Indian political parties and
constitution of legislatures elected, no doubt, on a restricted franchise. The colonial
powers were not inclined to trust these ministries even with limited powers probably in
view of the fact that not only the political parties in India were ambiguous regarding
entering the legislatures and ministries created under the said Act but some of them
were also proclaiming that even if they entered the ministries, they would try to break
the governments from within. The said section, therefore, provided that if, at any time,
the Governor or Governor-General felt that the ministry in the province or at the Centre
was not acting in accordance with the provisions of said Act, he could resume their
powers and exercise the same in his discretion1
.
Even though Article 356 was patterned upon the controversial Section 93 of the
Government of India Act, 1935 — with a difference that instead of the Governor, the
Page 3 of 8
European Journal of Business &
Social Sciences
Available at https://ejbss.org/
ISSN: 2235-767X
Volume 07 Issue 03
March 2019
Available online: https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 214
President is vested with the said power — yet it was thought necessary to have it in
view of the problems that the Indian Republic was expected to face soon after
independence'. The socio-political experience of the framers of the Constitution made
them acutely aware that security of the nation and the stability of its polity could not be
taken for granted. The road to democracy was not expected to be smooth. The vast
difference in social, economic and political life, the diversity in languages, race and
region were expected to present the nascent Republic with many difficult situations. It is
interesting to note that with respect to Union Territories, a provision similar to Article
356 is found enacted in Section 51 of Government of Union Territories Act enacted in
1963 and that it was indeed invoked on as many as 13 occasions. The Constituent
Assembly debates disclose these sentiments. They also disclose that several members
like H.N. Kunzru, H.V. Kamath and others strongly opposed the incorporation of Article
356 (draft Article 278) precisely for the reason that it purported to reincarnate and
imperial legacy.2 However these objections were overruled by Dr. Ambedkar with the
argument that no provision of any Constitution is immune from abuse and that mere
possibility of abuse cannot be a ground for not incorporating it in the Constitution. He
stated: "Such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a
dead letter. If at all they are brought into operation, I hope the President, who is
endowed with these powers, will take proper precautions before actually suspending
the administration of the Provinces. He further added that I hope the first thing he will
do would be to issue a clear warning to a Province that has erred, that things were not
happening in the way in which they were intended to happened in the Constitution."3
The emergency provisions were thus introduced in the Constitution without
adequate debate in the Constituent Assembly leaving enough scope for abuse of these
powers. Moreover, making proclamation of emergency under Article 356 depends on
