Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
The Indian Constitution, a beacon of democratic governance, establishes a federal structure where power is divided between the Union and the States. However, situations can arise where a State government is unable to function effectively, leading to a potential crisis. This necessitates a mechanism to intervene, enshrined in Article 356 of the Constitution, popularly known as the "President's Rule." The concept of "breakdown of constitutional machinery" is central to invoking this provision, and its interpretation has been a subject of significant judicial scrutiny, shaping the delicate balance between Centre-State relations. Recent instances, such as the imposition of President’s Rule in Maharashtra (2023), highlight the ongoing relevance and complexities of this constitutional power.
What is Breakdown of Constitutional Machinery?
Article 356 of the Constitution doesn't explicitly define "breakdown of constitutional machinery." It states that the President can assume legislative powers if a situation arises where the State government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution. This ambiguity allows for a wide interpretation, encompassing various scenarios, including:
- Political Instability: Frequent changes of government, coalition breakdowns, or a prolonged period without a stable majority.
- Constitutional Crisis: Disregard for constitutional provisions by the State government.
- Administrative Collapse: Inability of the State government to maintain law and order or deliver essential services.
- Financial Impropriety: Gross mismanagement of State finances.
The key lies in the *subjective assessment* of whether the State government is genuinely unable to function.
Powers of the President Under Article 356
When the President, acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers, deems that a situation of breakdown has arisen, he can issue a Proclamation under Article 356. This proclamation grants the President:
- Legislative Powers: The President can exercise the legislative powers of the State legislature. Ordinances can be issued.
- Executive Powers: The executive functions of the State are taken over by the Central government.
- Financial Powers: The President controls the State’s finances.
Critical Examination: Judicial Scrutiny and Evolving Interpretations
Initially, the courts adopted a deferential approach to the President's satisfaction. However, this changed significantly with the landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case.
S.R. Bommai Case and its Significance
This case fundamentally altered the understanding of Article 356. The Supreme Court held:
- The President’s power is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.
- The satisfaction of the President must be based on objective material, not merely on subjective satisfaction.
- The High Court can be approached directly to challenge the imposition of President’s Rule, bypassing the Supreme Court initially.
- The proclamation can be challenged on the grounds of mala fide intentions or arbitrary action.
- The imposition of President’s Rule cannot be used to destabilize elected governments.
The Bommai judgment emphasized that the power to impose President’s Rule is a "last resort" and should be used sparingly. It also introduced the concept of proportionality – the action taken should be commensurate with the crisis.
Subsequent Cases and Refinement of Principles
Further refinement of the principles emerged in subsequent cases:
- Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): Reinforced the Bommai judgment, reiterating the need for objective materials and judicial scrutiny.
- Nitish Kumar v. Union of India (2007): Highlighted the importance of maintaining the federal fabric of the Constitution and avoiding its misuse. The court emphasized the need for a 'cooling off' period before invoking Article 356.
Limitations and Concerns
Despite judicial oversight, concerns remain regarding the potential for misuse of Article 356:
- Political Motivation: The power can be exploited for political gains, undermining the autonomy of States.
- Erosion of Federalism: Frequent interventions can weaken the federal structure and create distrust between the Centre and the States.
- Lack of Transparency: The process of determining "breakdown of constitutional machinery" can be opaque, leading to allegations of bias.
The imposition of President’s Rule in Maharashtra (2023), while justified on grounds of political instability, reignited the debate surrounding its potential for misuse and the need for greater transparency and accountability.
| Case Name | Year | Key Ruling/Principle Established |
|---|---|---|
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | 1994 | President’s power subject to judicial review; High Court can be approached directly; Proportionality principle. |
| Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India | 2006 | Reinforced Bommai judgment; Need for objective materials. |
| Nitish Kumar v. Union of India | 2007 | Emphasis on maintaining federalism; ‘Cooling off’ period. |
Conclusion
In conclusion, Article 356, while intended to safeguard the Constitution and ensure governance, remains a contentious provision. The interpretation of "breakdown of constitutional machinery" and the exercise of presidential power have been significantly shaped by judicial interventions, particularly the landmark S.R. Bommai case. While judicial scrutiny has mitigated the potential for misuse, concerns persist regarding political motivations and the erosion of federalism. A more transparent and accountable process, coupled with a greater emphasis on exploring alternative solutions, is crucial to preserve the integrity of the Constitution and uphold the principles of cooperative federalism.
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.