POLITICS OF PRESIDENT’S RULE IN STATES

Submitted by-

Divyaraj Jain

SM0121021

Faculty in charge –

Shangky Khongwar

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY AND JUDICIAL

ACADEMY

GUWAHATI, ASSAM

1|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS

❖ INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 3

o LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 4

o SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................................... 5

o RESEARCH QUESTIONS............................................................................................................. 5

o RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 5

❖ WHEN AND HOW THE PRESIDENT RULE IS IMPOSED? .............................................................. 5

❖ WHAT DID SUPREME COURT STATE IN S.R BOMMAI V UNION OF INDIA? ............................ 7

❖ WHAT ARE SOME INSTANCES OF CONTROVERSIAL USE OF PRESIDENT RULE? ................ 8

o NEHRU-GANDHI FAMILY .......................................................................................................... 8

o UTTARAKHAND CRISIS ............................................................................................................. 9

o MAHARASHTRA CRISIS........................................................................................................... 10

❖ CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................................................... 11

❖ REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 12

2|Page
INTRODUCTION

“Critically examine the role of Governor in state politics in India, particularly in Bihar. Is he
a mere puppet?”1 This was a question asked in Bihar public commission examinations in the
year 2019, but the hard reality of this question continues to strike today. Recent controversies
concerning various governors and lieutenant governors have again set off alarms regarding the
role of governors. Various major parties have been accused of misusing the position of
governor while in power for their political gains and the same have mourned for murder of
democracy when on the receiving end of the tyranny. Under various governments, the
governors have been criticized for unwarranted suggestions for imposing of President Rule and
the centre taking over the states in a very undemocratic manner. One significant non-federal
and undemocratic aspect of the Indian Constitution, found nowhere else in the world's real
federal systems, is the "Presidential rule provision" under Article 356. It was almost employed
as a non-emergency power on dubious political and administrative grounds, rather than
remaining a "dead-letter" or "dormant provision" to be used only as a last choice in any failing
State as a form of "salvage-operation" or "rescue-operation". The state governments'
susceptibility to it and the Central ruling party's propensity to invoke Article 356 on feeble
justifications show how mocked up India's Federalism. The chairman of the drafting
committee, B.R. Ambedkar, supported the replication of the president rule provision from the
Government of India Act into the constitution though he faced resistance from many members.
Various members of the Constitutional assembly had opposed this provision of imposing
President rule in a state citing the reason that Article 356 may result in union dominance over
the state because of the vague and subjective nature of the word ‘otherwise’. However, while
sharing the concerns of his fellow colleagues Ambedkar supported the rule by saying “We ought
to expect is that such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain
as dead letters. If at all they are brought into operation, I hope the President, who is endowed
with these powers, will take proper precautions before actually suspending the administration
of the provinces”. But the time has proved that this provision is anything but dead and
Ambedkar couldn’t be more wrong. Till 2020, president rule has been imposed more than 130
times across various Indian states. It has been used almost constantly as a bludgeon to: (a)
Silence the bravado for more State autonomy; (b) dethrone unwanted State governments; (c)
prevent opposition parties from forming Ministries i the States; (d) Punish the dissidents within
the ruling party at t State level; and (e) promote the prospects of 'one-party federalism' in the
entire country.’
3|Page
LITERATURE REVIEW
• Dua, Bhagwan D. “Presidential Rule in India: A Study in Crisis Politics.” Asian Survey,
vol. 19, no. 6, 1979.

The journal explores the use of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the
President of India to assume control of a state government in case of a constitutional crisis.
The journal analyses the circumstances under which this provision has been invoked, the
political implications of its use, and its impact on democracy in India. The author argues
that the use of Article 356 is often motivated by political considerations rather than genuine
constitutional crises, and that it has been misused by central governments to undermine
opposition state governments. The book also highlights the negative impact of Presidential
rule on democracy in India, including the erosion of federalism and the suppression of
dissent. The journal is based on extensive research and draws on a wide range of primary
and secondary sources, including government documents, legal cases, and media reports.

• Siwach, J. R. “STATE AUTONOMY AND THE PRESIDENT’S RULE.” The Indian

Journal of Political Science, vol. 46, no. 2, 1985.

The article begins with an examination of the concept of state autonomy and its significance
in the Indian federal system. It then provides a detailed analysis of the use of Article 356
in different contexts, including political crises, law and order problems, and administrative
failures. The author argues that the use of Article 356 has eroded state autonomy and
undermined the federal structure of the Indian Constitution. He highlights the negative
impact of Presidential rule on state governments, including the curtailment of their powers
and the suppression of democratic processes. The book also explores the legal and
constitutional aspects of the President's rule, including the role of the Governor, the grounds
for imposing central rule, and the procedure for revoking it. The author emphasizes the
need for greater transparency and accountability in the use of Article 356, and suggests
several reforms to strengthen the federal system and protect state autonomy.

4|Page
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The scope of this paper is limited to the President Rule in Indian states. The objective of this
paper is to understand how and when the rule can be put in place. It also aims to understand
the misuse and politics behind the provision using various case studies.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
• When and how the President rule is imposed?
• What did Supreme Court state is S.R Bommai v Union of India?
• What are some instances of controversial use of president rule?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The paper is compiled using analytical research methodology. Under primary source
Constitution of India was solely used. Under secondary sources various papers, articles, blogs
from reputed publishing houses and news portals were referred to.

WHEN AND HOW THE PRESIDENT RULE IS IMPOSED?

Under Article 3561, if the President, on recommendation of the Governor of the state, is
satisfied that such situation has arisen wherein the government of the state cannot be continued
with accordance to the provisions of constitution shall impose President Rule. Once the
President rule is imposed, the state assembly ceases to function and comes under control of
central government. The powers of the state assembly become exercisable by or under the
authority of Parliament. The executive power shifts from the council of ministers to the
governor. Once imposed, President’s rule must be approved by Parliament within a period of
two months. It can’t last for more than six months unless its extension is approved by
Parliament. It can be imposed on a state on the following grounds:

1. Failure of the constitutional machinery: This occurs when a state government is unable
to function in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

2. Internal disturbance: This refers to situations where the law-and-order situation in a

state has deteriorated to such an extent that the state machinery has broken down.

1
Indian Constitution. art. 356, § 1.

5|Page
 3. Breakdown of coalition government: In the case of a state government being run by a
coalition, if the coalition partners are unable to work together, leading to the
government becoming dysfunctional.

4. Failure of the state to comply with directions of the Union Government: If a state
government fails to comply with the directions given by the Union Government,
President's Rule can be imposed.

Under these head various exceptional situations can be found where on reasonable grounds the
President rule can be imposed for example; where after the general elections of the State
Legislative Assembly no party gains the absolute majority and no political party or group
would be in a position to form the stable and viable government, where a Ministry is defeated
on the floor of the Assembly and no political party or group would be in position to form a
stable government. where a Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers have resigned and an
alternative government formation is not possible, where the Chief Minister advises the
Governor to dissolve the Assembly after losing his majority in the Assembly, where the
Assembly is dissolved around February/March, without passing the budget, where the Ministry
fails to carry out the directives issued by the Union Government under Articles 256 and 257,
where a Ministry acts contrary to the provisions of the Constitution, where a complete
breakdown of Jaw and order ensues in a State due to secessionist activities or communal
violence and the State Government is unable to maintain the security of the people and property
in the State.

The process of imposing President's Rule:

1. The first step is for the Union Cabinet to recommend the imposition of President's Rule
to the President.

2. The President will then refer the matter to the Governor of the concerned state for a
report on the situation.

3. Based on the Governor's report, the President may either accept or reject the
recommendation of the Union Cabinet.

6|Page
 4. If the President approves the recommendation, a proclamation imposing President's
Rule is issued.

5. The state assembly is then either dissolved or put under suspended animation, and the
Governor assumes all the powers of the state government.

6. The President's Rule can remain in force for a maximum period of six months, after
which it can be extended for another six months with the approval of both houses of
Parliament.

WHAT DID SUPREME COURT STATE IN S.R BOMMAI V UNION OF INDIA?

S.R. Bommai v Union of India2 is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law that deals with
the issue of imposition of President's Rule in a state. The case arose out of a dispute over the
imposition of President's Rule in the state of Karnataka in 1989. The case has far-reaching
implications for the relationship between the state and central governments in India, and for
the use of President's Rule as a tool for governance.

Background:

In 1989, the Janata Dal government in Karnataka was facing a crisis, with several of its
legislators defecting to the opposition party. The Chief Minister of Karnataka, S.R. Bommai,
sought a vote of confidence in the state legislative assembly. The vote was scheduled for April
20, 1989. However, before the vote could take place, the Governor of Karnataka, P.
Venkatasubbaiah, recommended to the President of India that President's Rule be imposed in
the state. The President accepted the recommendation and imposed President's Rule in
Karnataka on April 21, 1989. S.R. Bommai challenged the imposition of President's Rule in
the Supreme Court of India.

The Judgment:

The Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, held that the imposition of President's Rule under
Article 356 of the Constitution is subject to judicial review. The court also laid down guidelines
for the exercise of the power of the President to impose President's Rule. The guidelines were
aimed at ensuring that the power is used only in exceptional circumstances and that the state

S.R. Bommai v Union of India , 1994 SCC (3) 1.

2

7|Page
government is not dismissed arbitrarily. The court held that the President's power to dismiss a
state government under Article 356 is not absolute, but is subject to judicial review. The court
also held that the satisfaction of the President must be based on material that is relevant and
not irrelevant, and that the President must be satisfied that there is a breakdown of constitutional
machinery in the state. The court also held that the satisfaction of the President must be based
on objective material and that the court can examine the material to ensure that it is not
arbitrary. The court further held that the imposition of President's Rule should be a measure of
last resort, and that other alternatives should be explored before resorting to it. The court also
held that if President's Rule is imposed, it should be for the shortest possible period and that
fresh elections should be held as soon as possible.

The Impact: The Bommai case has had a profound impact on the use of President's Rule in
India. The guidelines laid down by the court have made it more difficult for the central
government to dismiss state governments arbitrarily. The case has also led to greater scrutiny
of the exercise of the President's power to dismiss state governments. The case has also made
it clear that the power to dismiss a state government is not absolute, but is subject to judicial
review.

Conclusion:

The S.R. Bommai v Union of India case has been instrumental in shaping the constitutional
framework of India. It has strengthened the federal structure of the country and has made it
more difficult for the central government to dismiss state governments arbitrarily. The case has
also underscored the importance of judicial review in ensuring that the exercise of executive
power is not arbitrary or capricious. Overall, the Bommai case is a landmark judgment that has
had far-reaching implications for the governance of India.

WHAT ARE SOME INSTANCES OF CONTROVERSIAL USE OF PRESIDENT

RULE?

NEHRU-GANDHI FAMILY
The Nehru-Gandhi family, which has dominated Indian politics for several decades, has often
been accused of using the President's rule as a political tool to dismiss state governments that
were not aligned with their party's interests. One of the most infamous cases of the misuse of

8|Page
President's rule by the Nehru-Gandhi family was the dismissal of the democratically elected
communist government in Kerala in 1959. At that time, the Communist Party of India (CPI)
had won the elections in Kerala and formed a government led by E.M.S. Namboodiripad.
However, the central government led by Jawaharlal Nehru, who was the Prime Minister of
India, was not happy with the communist government in Kerala. The Congress party alleged
that the communist government in Kerala was a threat to national security and that it was trying
to establish a communist state in India. Using these allegations as a pretext, the Nehru
government dismissed the democratically elected communist government in Kerala and
imposed President's rule in the state. The CPI challenged this move in the Supreme Court, and
the court ruled that the dismissal of the government was unconstitutional. The Janata Party
accused the Congress of using President's rule as a political tool to cling to power and prevent
the opposition from forming governments in the states. Even after the Janata Party lost power
in 1979, the Congress government continued to dismiss opposition-ruled governments in the
states and impose President's rule. One of the most notable instances of this was the dismissal
of the Akali Dal government in Punjab in 1983. The misuse of President's rule by the Nehru-
Gandhi family was not only undemocratic but also had long-lasting consequences. It weakened
the federal structure of India and created a sense of insecurity among the state governments.
The misuse of President's rule by the central government also led to a loss of trust between the
states and the center, which has had a negative impact on the country's politics. In conclusion,
the misuse of President's rule by the Nehru-Gandhi family is a dark chapter in Indian political
history. It not only undermined the democratic principles but also eroded the trust between the
states and the center. It is a reminder that constitutional provisions such as President's rule
should be used sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, and not as a tool for political
gain.

UTTARAKHAND CRISIS

In March of 2016, nine MLAs from then congress government headed by Harish Rawat
had rebelled and had intended to join the BJP which was at power in centre. The opposition
questioned the majority of Harish’s government and BJP then staked the claim to form the
government. Then Governor KK Paul asked the Chief Minister to prove its majority by floor
test on 28th of March. But on the day before the floor test, the speaker had disqualified the nine
congress rebels under the Anti Defection Law. Under this law a member can be disqualified on
the grounds of defection to other party. This further deepened uncertainty about

9|Page
congress’s majority and within hours of this, Presidential Rule was imposed and Mr. Rawat
was ousted, without been given the opportunity to prove its majority and centre was put in
force. Congress revolted and the matter was taken to High Court, wherein the Presidential Rule
was called unwarranted and Mr. Rawat was given opportunity to prove his majority. Mr. Rawat
won the trust vote comfortably with support from BSP. Then Uttrakhand Chief Justice Joseph
said the court was ‘pained’ by the centre’s imposition of President’s Rule in Uttrakhand where
the Centre was acting like a ‘private party’. This is a one of many instances of misuse of this
provision to make a hostile takeover.3 This is one of many instances of unwarranted imposition
of president rule highlights the unconstitutional use by the centre in order to restrict the
opposition to prove its majority and giving opportunity to themselves to come to a favourable
agreement.
MAHARASHTRA CRISIS
On 24th October 2019, after the declaration election results Shiv Sena withdrew their support
from BJP, ending ties with their oldest ally. Since BJP reneged from its promise of 50-50 power
sharing under which half tenure of Chief Minister was to be given to Shiv Sena. Due to this
fallout, there was no party in majority and BJP being the single largest party was invited by the
Governor to form the government. However, due to lack of majority it rejected the proposal
which was further offered to other major parties. Since no party was able attain majority, the
Governor recommended President Rule in the state to the union cabinet and the President.
This was accepted and imposed on 12th of November. On 22nd November, Shiv Sena with NCP
and INC came together to form a government under leadership of Uddhav Thackarey. BJP
feared losing Maharashtra constituency to this new alliance and yet again knocked door of its
very dear friend. In an interesting twist of event, on 23rd November at 5:47 am the President
Rule was lifted on recommendation of the governor and within few hours David Fernandez
(BJP) and Ajit Pawar (NCP) were swear-in as Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister
respectively. However, later that day Sharad Pawar the chief of NCP declared that Ajit Pawar
has been sacked from the party parliamentary post and has supported BJP in his personal
capacity and has no relation with their party. The opposition approached Supreme Court
against the misuse of Governor’s discretionary power and questioned the newly formed
government’s majority. The Apex Court ordered floor test for the same. In reality BJP had no
support from NCP. Hence, both David and Ajit resigned hours before the floor test. Later, the
post-election alliance of Shiv Sena, NCP and INC went ahead to form the government with

3
Satya Prakash, President’s Rulein Uttrakhand, Hindustan Times (March 28th,2016).

10 | P a g e
Thackarey as the Chief Minister4. This event highlights the collusion between the centre and
the state governor to benefit the centre party. Very conveniently the president rule was imposed
giving time to BJP to gather support and again very conveniently the rule was lifted early
morning without public knowledge and Fernandez was sworn in.

CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the politics of President's Rule in India has been a contentious issue since the
inception of the Indian Constitution. While the provision for imposing President's Rule was
included in the Constitution as a means of ensuring the stability and integrity of the nation, it
has been misused by various governments for their own political gains. The misuse of
President's Rule has led to a subversion of the democratic process, and has been detrimental to
the principles of federalism and constitutionalism. The case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
laid down important guidelines to prevent the misuse of President's Rule and reaffirmed the
supremacy of the Constitution. However, political parties have continued to misuse President's
Rule for their own benefit, leading to a lack of faith in the democratic process. Governor acts
under the pleasure of President and President acts on aid and advice of the council of ministers
belonging to the ruling party at the center. Therefore, there is a great probability of the
governor’s report being influenced by the ruling party’s interests and agendas at the center and
it has also been observed in various times. It is imperative that political leaders and parties
uphold the principles of federalism and constitutionalism enshrined in the Constitution, and
use President's Rule only in exceptional circumstances, as intended by the framers of the
Constitution. The need for reforms to prevent the misuse of President's Rule cannot be
overstated, and it is the responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure that the provisions of the
Constitution are upheld in letter and spirit. The politics of President's Rule should not be a tool
for political expediency, but rather a means of upholding the democratic values enshrined in
the Constitution. One needs to understand the gravity of President rule; it’s like an
encroachment in the ambit of state government thereby violating the federal structure of the
country.

***

4
Siddhartya Roy, Maharashtra’s political game of throne, The Diplomat (December 9th, 2019).

11 | P a g e
REFERENCES

• The Constitution of India

• S.R. Bommai v Union of India , 1994 SCC (3) 1. S.R. Bommai v Union of India , 1994
SCC (3) 1.
• Satya Prakash, President’s Rulein Uttrakhand, Hindustan Times (March 28th,2016).
• Siddhartya Roy, Maharashtra’s political game of throne, The Diplomat (December 9th,
2019).

12 | P a g e
ops
ORIGINALITY REPORT

14 %
SIMILARITY INDEX
12%
INTERNET SOURCES
2%
PUBLICATIONS
1%
STUDENT PAPERS

PRIMARY SOURCES

1
www.indiatimes.com
Internet Source 7%
2
theprint.in
Internet Source 2%
3
"Severance Payment and Labor Mobility",
Springer Science and Business Media LLC,
2%
2018
Publication

4
www.news18.com
Internet Source 1%
5
www.mahaexcise.com
Internet Source 1%
6
Submitted to Notre Dame de Namur
University
<1 %
Student Paper

7
mb.cision.com
Internet Source <1 %