Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, often termed the ‘emergency provision’, grants the Union Government the power to impose President’s Rule in a state, suspending its constitutional machinery. While frequently invoked in the early decades after independence, its use has significantly decreased since the mid-1990s. This shift isn’t accidental; it’s a result of a complex interplay of legal interpretations by the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, and evolving political realities, including the era of coalition governments and a greater emphasis on federal principles. This answer will account for these legal and political factors contributing to the reduced frequency of Article 356’s application.
Constitutional Framework of Article 356
Article 356 allows the President, on the recommendation of the Union Council of Ministers, to impose President’s Rule in a state if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This can occur due to a constitutional breakdown, failure of constitutional machinery, or an inability to form a stable government. The initial understanding allowed for a broad interpretation of ‘constitutional breakdown’.
Legal Factors: The Role of Judicial Pronouncements
The Supreme Court, through a series of landmark judgments, has significantly curtailed the scope of Article 356. These judgments have imposed stricter conditions on its invocation:
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): This is the most crucial case. The Court held that the power under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. It laid down several guidelines, including:
- The President’s satisfaction must be based on relevant materials.
- The proclamation must not be based on extraneous considerations.
- The power should be exercised as a last resort.
- The dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly is not automatic and must be justified.
- Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016): This case further clarified the limits of the Governor’s role in government formation and the imposition of President’s Rule, particularly concerning situations of political instability and floor tests. It emphasized the importance of respecting the elected majority.
These rulings effectively increased the legal threshold for invoking Article 356, making it more difficult for the Union Government to justify its use. The Court’s emphasis on judicial review and the need for concrete evidence significantly reduced the arbitrary application of the provision.
Political Factors: The Rise of Coalition Politics and Federalism
Alongside legal constraints, several political factors contributed to the decline in the use of Article 356:
- Coalition Governments: The 1990s witnessed the rise of coalition governments at the Centre. These governments were inherently more sensitive to federal concerns and less inclined to impose President’s Rule, as it could destabilize the coalition itself. Reliance on regional parties necessitated a more conciliatory approach.
- Strengthening of Federalism: A growing awareness of the importance of federalism and the need to respect the autonomy of states led to a political reluctance to intervene in state affairs. Political parties increasingly recognized the potential backlash from regional forces.
- Changing Political Culture: A shift towards more democratic norms and a greater emphasis on consensus-building reduced the willingness of the Union Government to resort to drastic measures like President’s Rule.
- Increased Scrutiny: The media and civil society became more vigilant in scrutinizing the actions of the Union Government, making it more difficult to justify the imposition of President’s Rule without strong evidence of constitutional breakdown.
Example: The situation in Uttar Pradesh in 1998, where the BSP-BJP coalition government faced challenges, illustrates this shift. Despite political tensions, the Union Government refrained from imposing President’s Rule, opting instead for negotiations and political maneuvering.
Comparative Analysis: Pre and Post-1990s
| Period | Frequency of Article 356 Invocation | Political Context | Judicial Stance |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1950-1990 | Frequent (over 100 times) | Dominant party system at the Centre | Limited judicial review |
| 1990s-Present | Infrequent (significantly reduced) | Coalition governments, rise of regional parties | Enhanced judicial review (S.R. Bommai & Nabam Rebia) |
Conclusion
The reduced frequency of Article 356’s invocation since the mid-1990s is a testament to the maturing of Indian democracy. The Supreme Court’s interventions, particularly the S.R. Bommai case, established crucial legal safeguards against its misuse. Simultaneously, the rise of coalition politics and a growing emphasis on federal principles fostered a political climate less conducive to central intervention in state affairs. While Article 356 remains a vital constitutional provision, its application is now subject to far greater scrutiny and restraint, reflecting a healthier balance of power between the Centre and the States.
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.