Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, often referred to as the ‘constitutional safety valve’, empowers the President to impose President’s Rule in a state when the constitutional machinery has broken down. However, its application has been consistently controversial. The statement highlights a key criticism: the abruptness with which Article 356 is often invoked, leaving state governments with little opportunity to rectify perceived shortcomings. This perceived lack of due process not only infringes upon the autonomy guaranteed to states within the federal structure but also potentially diminishes the stature of the President, who acts on the aid and advice of the Union Government. This analysis will delve into these concerns, examining the historical context and implications of Article 356.
Understanding Article 356 and its Provisions
Article 356 allows the President, on the recommendation of the Union Council of Ministers (headed by the Prime Minister), to assume the powers of the State Government. This can happen in two scenarios: when a state is unable to constitute a government capable of carrying on administration, or when there is a constitutional breakdown. The President’s Rule suspends the state legislature and the state executive, with governance being carried out by the Governor, under the direct control of the Central Government.
The ‘Bolt from the Blue’ Phenomenon: Undermining State Autonomy
The criticism that Article 356 acts as a ‘bolt from the blue’ stems from the often-sudden imposition of President’s Rule. Several factors contribute to this perception:
- Lack of Prior Notice: State governments are rarely given adequate warning or opportunity to address the concerns leading to the recommendation for Article 356. This contrasts with principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.
- Subjectivity in Determining ‘Constitutional Breakdown’: The determination of a ‘constitutional breakdown’ is often subjective and open to interpretation. This allows the Union Government considerable discretion, potentially leading to political motivations influencing the decision.
- Historical Misuse: Throughout India’s history, Article 356 has been invoked frequently, and many instances have been criticized as politically motivated. For example, the imposition of President’s Rule in states like Kerala (1959), Jammu and Kashmir (multiple times), and more recently in Maharashtra (2019) have sparked debates about its misuse.
Demeaning the Status of the President
The President of India is a constitutional head, expected to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. However, the frequent invocation of Article 356, often perceived as driven by the ruling party at the Centre, can diminish the President’s perceived impartiality and independence.
- Reduced Agency: The President’s role is largely ceremonial in this context, appearing as a mere rubber stamp for the Union Government’s decisions.
- Erosion of Public Trust: When Article 356 is seen as politically motivated, it erodes public trust in both the President and the institution of the Union Government.
- Compromised Federal Spirit: The frequent use of Article 356 signals a disregard for the federal principles enshrined in the Constitution, further impacting the President’s position as a guardian of the Constitution.
Safeguards and Recent Developments
Recognizing the potential for misuse, several safeguards have been introduced over time:
- S.R. Bommai Case (1994): The Supreme Court in the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case laid down guidelines to restrict the scope of Article 356. The Court held that the President’s power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. It emphasized that the imposition of President’s Rule should be a last resort and that the state legislature should be suspended, not dissolved, to allow for a future government to be formed.
- Constitutional (Ninety-Second Amendment) Act, 2003: This amendment introduced a provision requiring the Governor to report to the President only after satisfying themselves that the government cannot be carried on.
Despite these safeguards, concerns remain about the potential for political manipulation and the erosion of state autonomy. The recent political developments in states like Maharashtra have reignited the debate surrounding the use of Article 356 and the role of the Governor.
Comparative Analysis: Federal Structures and Emergency Provisions
| Country | Emergency Provisions | Safeguards/Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| USA | Federal intervention limited to ensuring laws are faithfully executed. | Strong judicial review; emphasis on states’ rights. |
| Canada | Disallowance power (limited use); federal intervention in specific circumstances. | Constitutional conventions; judicial review. |
| India | Article 356 – President’s Rule. | S.R. Bommai guidelines; 92nd Amendment; judicial review. |
Conclusion
Article 356 remains a contentious provision in the Indian Constitution. While intended as a safeguard against constitutional breakdown, its history is marred by instances of perceived misuse, undermining both state autonomy and the President’s stature. The safeguards introduced through judicial pronouncements and constitutional amendments have mitigated some of the risks, but the inherent subjectivity in determining a ‘constitutional breakdown’ continues to pose a challenge. A greater emphasis on inter-state council consultations, adherence to the spirit of cooperative federalism, and a more cautious approach to invoking Article 356 are crucial to preserving the delicate balance of power within India’s federal structure.
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.