Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Article 356, also known as the "President's Rule," grants the President of India the power to impose Emergency in a State. This power, derived from the Constitution of India, is intended to address situations where the state government is unable to function according to constitutional norms. However, the invocation of Article 356 has been a recurrent source of political contention and judicial scrutiny, often viewed as an encroachment upon state autonomy. The imposition of Emergency triggers a cascade of consequences, significantly impacting the state's legislative, executive, and judicial functions. The S.R. Bommai case (1994) fundamentally altered the landscape of Article 356, introducing judicial oversight and limiting its arbitrary application.
Constitutional Framework of Article 356
Article 356(1) allows the President to proclaim an Emergency in a State if he/she is satisfied that the state government cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This satisfaction must be based on "exceptional circumstances." Article 356(2) stipulates that the proclamation must be approved by a resolution passed in both Houses of Parliament by an absolute majority. Article 356(3) allows Parliament to extend the Emergency for a period of six months, renewable subsequently.
Consequences of Proclamation of Emergency in a State
The proclamation of Emergency in a State has far-reaching consequences, impacting various facets of governance:
Legislative Consequences
- Suspension of State Legislature: The state legislature is suspended, and the powers of the state legislature are exercised by Parliament. This means Parliament can make laws applicable to the state on any subject.
- All-India Services: All-India Service officers are taken over by the Central government for the duration of the Emergency.
- Parliamentary Laws: Laws passed by Parliament become applicable to the state, even if they ordinarily fall within the state's legislative competence.
Executive Consequences
- Central Government Control: The state government ceases to exist, and the administration is directly controlled by the Central Government through an appointed Administrator. The Administrator acts on behalf of the President.
- Financial Control: The Central Government gains control over the state’s finances.
- Appointment of Governor: While the Governor remains in office, their powers are significantly curtailed, and they act on the advice of the Central Government.
Judicial Consequences
- Judicial Review: Initially, judicial review of Article 356 was limited. However, the S.R. Bommai case (1994) significantly expanded judicial scrutiny.
- Constitutional Validity: Courts can examine the reasons and materials on which the President based his/her satisfaction.
- Proportionality: The imposition must be proportionate to the situation.
Pre- and Post-S.R. Bommai Scenario
| Feature | Pre-S.R. Bommai (Prior to 1994) | Post-S.R. Bommai (After 1994) |
|---|---|---|
| Judicial Review | Limited; courts largely deferred to the President's satisfaction. | Expanded; courts can examine the reasons and materials. |
| State Government's Role | Largely disregarded during Emergency. | Can challenge the Emergency; constitutional remedies are available. |
| Duration | Could potentially continue indefinitely with parliamentary approval. | Subject to stricter judicial oversight and periodic review. |
Controversies and Criticisms
The invocation of Article 356 has been marred by controversies, often perceived as a tool for political manipulation by the Central Government:
- Frequent Use: Between 1950 and 1994, Article 356 was imposed 53 times, raising concerns about its overuse.
- Political Motivation: Many instances were seen as politically motivated, used to topple state governments and impose Central control. For example, the imposition in Uttar Pradesh in 1995.
- Erosion of Federalism: Critics argue that the frequent use of Article 356 undermines the principles of federalism and state autonomy.
- Lack of Transparency: The criteria used by the Central Government to determine "exceptional circumstances" have often been criticized for lacking transparency.
Recent Trends
Following the S.R. Bommai judgment, the Central Government has been more cautious in invoking Article 356. However, instances like the imposition in Uttarakhand in 2016 and Manipur in 2020 have reignited debates about its appropriateness and potential for misuse. The Uttarakhand case was particularly controversial, prompting questions about the Governor's role in recommending Emergency.
The Role of the Governor
The Governor plays a crucial role in recommending the imposition of Emergency. Article 356(1) states that the President can proclaim an Emergency only if he/she is satisfied on the basis of a report from the Governor. However, the Governor’s report is not binding on the President, leading to debates about the extent of the Governor's discretion.
Conclusion
The imposition of Emergency under Article 356 remains a contentious issue in Indian polity, balancing the need for Central intervention in exceptional circumstances with the preservation of state autonomy and federalism. The <i>S.R. Bommai</i> case has significantly strengthened judicial oversight, limiting the arbitrary application of this power. While the frequency of its use has decreased, the potential for political manipulation and the impact on state governance necessitate continued vigilance and a nuanced understanding of its constitutional implications. Greater transparency in the decision-making process and adherence to the principle of proportionality are crucial to ensure that Article 356 is employed responsibly and only when absolutely necessary.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.