Introduction
Article 355 of the Constitution casts an affirmative obligation on 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 the Constitution. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clarified in the Constituent Assembly that this provision was explicitly incorporated to ensure that Union intervention in State affairs is rooted in a constitutional duty rather than being an arbitrary political intrusion. Notably, the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act (1978) retained the broader term 'internal disturbance' in Article 355 while substituting it with 'armed rebellion' in Article 352, according the Union wider protective latitude.
Article 355 as a Justificatory Preface to Article 356
In one constitutional dimension, Article 355 serves as the conceptual foundation and limiting threshold for invoking President's Rule under Article 356:
- Threshold Condition: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that Article 355 provides the rationale and condition precedent for taking recourse to Article 356. Article 356 cannot be invoked in isolation; it is a remedy of last resort to fulfill the duty cast by Article 355.
- Bar on Arbitrary Dissolution: By tethering Article 356 to the Union's overarching duty under Article 355, the judiciary has circumscribed arbitrary dissolution of elected state assemblies, ensuring that invocation meets the strict standard of a breakdown of constitutional machinery rather than mere administrative friction or political disagreement.
Article 355 as an Independent Source of Power
Far from being merely procedural scaffolding for Article 356, Article 355 also functions as an independent repository of executive authority, enabling targeted central measures without superseding state governance:
- Autonomous Security Deployment: In Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998), the Supreme Court affirmed that the Union can deploy Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) suo motu to assist civil administration in restoring public order under the duty imposed by Article 355, without declaring an emergency or dismissing the state ministry.
- Broadened Protective Scope: In Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005), the Supreme Court interpreted large-scale, unabated cross-border influx as falling within the ambit of 'external aggression', holding that the Union is obligated under Article 355 to take proactive, independent measures to protect the state.
- Calibrated Non-Invasive Interventions: The article empowers the Centre to issue formal security advisories, coordinate cross-border intelligence, and render logistic support without displacing state autonomy or toppling constitutional functionaries.
Conclusion
Article 355 is therefore both an independent source of calibrated executive power and the substantive justification governing Article 356. As recommended by the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, it should operate as a graduated federal response mechanism—including localised emergencies and consultative force deployment—ensuring that the extreme step of President's Rule remains strictly a measure of last resort.