Under Part XVIII, Article 356 of Indian Constitution empowers the President to impose President's Rule in a state if its constitutional machinery fails. This provision, also known as State Emergency Article, allows the central government to assume direct control over a state's administration when the state government cannot function according to constitutional provisions. While intended as a safeguard to maintain constitutional order Article 356 has been a subject of controversy due to its potential for misuse . Understanding what is Article 356 of the Indian Constitution is crucial as it highlights the balance between state autonomy and central authority in India's federal structure . This President rule article delves into the exact text, interpretation, landmark judgments, significance, developments and amendments related to Art 356, providing a comprehensive overview of its role and implications in the Indian constitutional framework. Explore in-depth analysis of other Constitutional Articles.

Article 356 of Indian Constitution

Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State

(1)If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation-

(a)assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State;

(b)declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;

(c)make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to any body or authority in the State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorise the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to High Courts.

(2)Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation.

(3)Every Proclamation under this article shall be laid before each house of Parliament and shall, except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament:

Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People.

(4)A Proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of issue of the Proclamation:

Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a Proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of six months from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to operate, but no such Proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than three years:

Provided further that if the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during any such period of six months and a resolution approving the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People during the said period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the continuance in force of the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People:

Provided also that in the case of the Proclamation issued under clause (1) on the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect to the State of Punjab, the reference in the first proviso to this clause to "three years" shall be construed as a reference to five years.

(5)Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (4), a resolution with respect to the continuance in force of a Proclamation approved under clause (3) for any period beyond the expiration of one year from the date of issue of such proclamation shall not be passed by either House of Parliament unless-

(a)a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, in the whole of India or, as the case may be, in the whole or any part of the State, at the time of the passing of such resolution, and

(b)the Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of the Proclamation approved under clause (3) during the period specified in such resolution is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned:

Provided that nothing in the clause shall apply to the Proclamation issued under clause (1) on the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect to the State of Punjab.

Note: "The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders" 

Free Download on Article 356 of Indian Constitution PDF

356 Article of Indian Constitution allows the President to declare a state emergency if the state government fails to function according to constitutional provisions. This condition is commonly known as the failure of constitutional machinery.

Failure of Constitutional Machinery: The provision is triggered when the state cannot uphold constitutional governance. Causes may include law and order collapse, governance crisis, or inability to form a stable government.

President's Rule: Under President Rule article , the President takes over the state’s executive authority. The state legislature may be suspended or dissolved, and the Union government handles administration.

Parliament's Role: The Proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months. If approved, it lasts for six months and can be extended every six months up to a maximum of three years, with specific conditions.

Governor’s Role: The Governor may send a report to the President stating that the state cannot function constitutionally, prompting central intervention.

Grounds for Imposition: President’s Rule can be imposed if the President is satisfied—through a Governor’s report or otherwise—that the state cannot be governed per the Constitution. Art 365 also supports this, allowing action if a state fails to follow central directions.

This mechanism while aimed at maintaining constitutional order, has drawn criticism for potential misuse, emphasizing the importance of judicial oversight and federal balance .

Article 356 of Indian Constitution Landmark Judgments

These judgments have clarified the scope, application and significance of Art 356 in the legal structure of India . Some of the most important and influential cases include :

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) : The Supreme Court held that the President's proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review . It emphasized that the power is not absolute and should be used sparingly.
• State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977): The Court upheld the use of Article 356 of Constitution of India but stressed that it should not be used for political gains.
• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006): The dissolution of the Bihar Assembly was declared unconstitutional, reinforcing that Article 356 cannot be used arbitrarily.
• Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) : While primarily about anti-defection, the case touched upon the limits of central intervention in state matters, indirectly relating to Article 356.

What is Article 356 of Indian Constitution? It serves as a mechanism to ensure that state governments function within the constitutional framework. It acts as a corrective measure when a state's governance fails.

However, its misuse can undermine federalism and democracy. The provision's significance lies in balancing the need for central intervention with the autonomy of states. Judicial scrutiny and constitutional amendments have aimed to prevent its arbitrary use.

The landmark judgment in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India emphasized that the power under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. This has been instrumental in curbing the misuse of the provision for political gains.

Understanding what is Article 356 of Indian Constitution is crucial for appreciating its role in maintaining the constitutional balance between the Union and the states.

Article 356 of Indian Constitution Developments and Amendments 

Over time, several amendments and developments have refined Article 356 of Constitution Of India. Some of them are as under :

• 38th Amendment (1975) : Made the President's satisfaction final and conclusive, barring judicial review.
• 44th Amendment (1978) : Reversed the 38th Amendment, restoring judicial review and adding safeguards against misuse.
• Sarkaria Commission (1983) : Recommended that Article 356 be used sparingly and only as a last resort .

These developments aim to ensure that the provision is used judiciously, preserving the federal structure and democratic ethos .

The 48th Amendment (1984) specifically addressed the situation in Punjab allowing the extension of President Rule beyond one year under certain conditions .

Conclusion

Article 356 of Indian Constitution is a vital part of India’s emergency provisions. Also known as the President Rule article or state emergency article, it allows the central government to step in when a state government fails to function constitutionally. This can occur due to political instability, breakdown of law and order, or if the state deliberately acts against constitutional principles.

While art 356 ensures order during emergencies, its frequent and politically motivated use in the past raised serious concerns about federal misuse. Landmark judgments, especially S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, helped restore constitutional balance by stating that any action under 356 article of Indian Constitution is subject to judicial review.

The amendments—especially the 44th Constitutional Amendment—made the law stronger by ensuring it cannot be misused easily. The role of Parliament, limitations on extensions, and the importance of state autonomy have all been emphasized through reforms and court rulings.

To sum up, article 356 of the Indian constitution is related to constitutional breakdown in states, but its modern application includes necessary checks and balances. It is a powerful tool—but one that must be used with restraint, responsibility, and respect for democratic principles and the federal spirit of the nation.