Lecturrete topic 154 - President’s Rule in a State – An Indian Concept

 

Introduction

The Indian Constitution establishes a federal structure with clear demarcations of powers and responsibilities between the central and state governments. However, it also provides mechanisms to address situations where state governance fails. One such mechanism is President’s Rule, an extraordinary provision under Article 356, allowing the central government to take over the administration of a state under specific circumstances. This article explores the historical context, constitutional provisions, reasons, implications, and controversies surrounding President’s Rule in India. Through a detailed analysis backed by statistics and case studies, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of this unique feature of Indian federalism.

Historical Context

Origin of President’s Rule

The concept of President’s Rule has its roots in colonial India, drawing parallels from the Government of India Act, 1935. This act allowed the British Viceroy to assume control over provincial administrations under certain conditions. Post-independence, the framers of the Indian Constitution retained a similar provision to ensure the stability and integrity of the nation.

Constitutional Provisions

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to impose President’s Rule in a state if the Governor reports that the state government cannot function according to the provisions of the Constitution. During President’s Rule, the state legislature is either dissolved or suspended, and the state is governed directly by the central government through the Governor.

Constitutional Provisions and Procedure

Conditions for Imposition

President’s Rule can be imposed under several circumstances, including:

1. Failure of Constitutional Machinery: When the state government is unable to function according to constitutional provisions.
2. No Majority: If no party or coalition can form a stable government post-elections.
3. Breakdown of Law and Order: In cases of severe law and order breakdown where state authorities fail to maintain peace.

Process of Imposition

The process involves several steps:

1. Report by the Governor: The state Governor sends a report to the President, recommending President’s Rule.
2. Presidential Proclamation: Based on the Governor’s report and other inputs, the President issues a proclamation imposing President’s Rule.
3. Parliamentary Approval: The proclamation must be approved by both houses of Parliament within two months. If approved, it can last for six months and can be extended up to three years with periodic parliamentary approval.

Reasons for Imposition

Political Instability

Political instability, often resulting from hung assemblies where no party secures a clear majority, is a common reason for imposing President’s Rule. This scenario was witnessed in several states, including Bihar (2000), Goa (2005), and Karnataka (2007).

Statistics

• Since independence, President’s Rule has been imposed over 125 times in various states.

Breakdown of Law and Order

States experiencing severe law and order issues, such as communal violence, insurgency, or natural disasters, may come under President’s Rule to restore stability. The 1984 anti-Sikh riots in Delhi and the 2002 Gujarat riots are notable examples.

Corruption and Maladministration

Cases of rampant corruption and maladministration can also trigger President’s Rule. The dismissal of the S.R. Bommai government in Karnataka (1989) on grounds of corruption and misgovernance is a significant example.

Implications of President’s Rule

Administrative Changes

During President’s Rule, the state administration is overseen by the central government. The Governor assumes executive authority, often leading to significant administrative changes to restore governance and public order.

Impact on Federalism

The imposition of President’s Rule has substantial implications for Indian federalism. While it ensures central intervention in times of crisis, frequent or unjustified impositions can undermine the autonomy of state governments.

Case Study: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

The landmark Supreme Court judgment in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) significantly impacted the use of Article 356. The Court established that the imposition of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review and that the central government must provide valid grounds for its decision. This judgment curbed the arbitrary use of Article 356 and reinforced federal principles.

Controversies and Criticisms

Misuse for Political Gains

One of the major criticisms of President’s Rule is its potential misuse for political gains. There have been instances where the central government imposed President’s Rule to dismiss opposition-led state governments. The dismissal of the Janata Party government in Karnataka (1989) and the imposition of President’s Rule in Andhra Pradesh (1984) are cited as examples of such misuse.

Judicial Interventions

The judiciary has played a crucial role in checking the arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule. The S.R. Bommai case is a landmark judgment that set guidelines for the use of Article 356 and highlighted the need for objective grounds for imposing President’s Rule.

Statistics

• Between 1950 and 1994, President’s Rule was imposed 90 times. Post the Bommai judgment, there has been a significant decline in its frequency, with about 35 instances between 1995 and 2020.

Case Studies

Bihar (2005)

In 2005, Bihar witnessed a hung assembly where no party could form a government. Consequently, President’s Rule was imposed. Fresh elections were held later in the year, leading to the formation of a stable government under Nitish Kumar.

Uttarakhand (2016)

The imposition of President’s Rule in Uttarakhand in 2016 following a political crisis and the subsequent judicial intervention exemplifies the complex interplay between state autonomy and central authority. The High Court and the Supreme Court’s decisions to revoke the President’s Rule highlighted the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic processes.

Jammu and Kashmir (2018-2019)

In Jammu and Kashmir, President’s Rule was imposed in 2018 following the collapse of the coalition government. This was a unique situation given the state's special status under Article 370 (now abrogated), raising complex legal and political questions.

Statistical Analysis

Frequency of Imposition

The frequency of President’s Rule has varied over the decades. During the 1970s and 1980s, its imposition was more common, often linked to political turbulence and the central government’s attempts to maintain control over states. Post the Bommai judgment, the frequency declined due to stricter judicial scrutiny and the requirement for justifiable reasons.

Data Insights

• 1970s: Imposed 21 times.
• 1980s: Imposed 19 times.
• Post-1990s: Significant reduction due to judicial oversight.

Impact on State Elections

President’s Rule often leads to fresh elections in the affected state. Analysis shows that in many cases, the political party in power at the center gains an advantage in subsequent state elections, although this is not a consistent trend.

Election Outcomes

• Bihar (2005): Fresh elections led to a change in government.
• Karnataka (2007): Imposition followed by BJP gaining power.
• Uttarakhand (2016): Judicial intervention restored the previous government, followed by fresh elections in 2017.

Legal and Constitutional Safeguards

Judicial Review

The judiciary’s power to review the imposition of President’s Rule serves as a critical safeguard against its misuse. The Bommai judgment mandated that the central government must provide substantial reasons for dismissing a state government, subjecting the decision to judicial scrutiny.

Recommendations of Commissions

Several commissions, including the Sarkaria Commission and the Punchhi Commission, have provided recommendations to ensure the fair and justified use of President’s Rule. These include guidelines for Governors, the necessity for objective assessment, and the requirement for parliamentary approval.

Sarkaria Commission Recommendations

• Article 356 should be used sparingly and as a last resort.
• The Governor’s report should be a speaking document, providing detailed and objective reasons.
• Alternatives to President’s Rule, such as advisory interventions, should be considered.

Conclusion

President’s Rule in India is a constitutional provision designed to address extraordinary situations where state governance fails. While it ensures central intervention in times of crisis, its misuse for political gains has raised significant controversies and criticisms. The judiciary’s role in reviewing the imposition of President’s Rule has been pivotal in safeguarding federal principles and ensuring that the provision is used judiciously. Through legal safeguards and adherence to constitutional norms, the balance between central authority and state autonomy can be maintained, fostering a robust federal structure that upholds democratic values and governance.