Recent developments in two states — Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand — have turned the spotlight on Article 356, a central act used by Union governments to overthrow state governments.  

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government at the Centre recently brought Uttarakhand under President’s rule citing a constitutional breakdown in the wake of a rebellion in the ruling Congress in the state. However, the Supreme Court came to the rescue of the Harish Rawat government by setting aside central rule and ordering a floor test which helped the Congress show its majority with 33 votes in a house of 61. 

On the other hand, it paved the way for government formation in Arunachal Pradesh by ushering in a new dispensation headed by dissident Congress leader Kalikho Pul. A revolt by 14 Congress dissidents spearheaded by Pul against the Nabam Tuki-led Congress government triggered a political crisis in the northeastern state that finally led to the imposition of President’s rule on January 26.

The Supreme Court in February vacated its order on maintaining status quo, expressing satisfaction with a Gauhati High Court order staying the disqualification of the 14 MLAs.  

Since Independence, President’s rule has been imposed 124 times to dismiss elected governments. Article 356  was first invoked in March 1953 to dismiss the Gian Singh Rarewala-led United Front government of Patiala and East Punjab States Union, a union of eight princely states. In 1959, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru dismissed the E.M.S. Namboodiripad government in Kerala though the first elected Communist chief minister enjoyed a majority in the House.

Nothing stopped governments in power from clamping down central rule on states ruled by parties it deemed “unfriendly”. In the earlier years, there were only a few examples — it was invoked on three occasions between 1950 and 1954 and on nine occasions between 1965 and 1969. But governments were deposed 21 times from 1975 to 1979 and 18 times from 1980 to 1987.

It also became — and continues to be — a political weapon. The then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi dismissed nine non-Congress governments between 1975 and 1980. The Janata government dismissed as many Congress governments after winning the 1977 election. In 1980, when Gandhi returned to power, she once again dismissed governments ruled by non-Congress parties. P.V. Narasimha Rao as Prime Minister sacked BJP governments in four states in 1992 after the Ram Mandir agitation. 

“The fact that more often than not President’s rule has been invoked against a government headed by a party which is not in power at the Centre shows that it has served political rather than constitutional purposes in recent years,” notes Supreme Court advocate Gyanant Singh.

That the article has more often than not been misused has been made amply clear in the report of the Sarkaria Commission, set up in 1983 to look into Centre-state relations. In at least 13 instances from Independence till 1986, state governments that enjoyed a majority were dismissed. These cover instances where provisions of Article 356 were invoked to deal with intra-party problems or for considerations not relevant to the article, it states. The article was used for sorting out intra-party disputes in Punjab in 1951 and in Andhra Pradesh in 1973. 

But Siddharth Nayak, advocate, Delhi High Court, points out that the power exercised by central governments under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review, as was done in the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India, 1994, case. It held that the president was required to act on objective material, and that Article 356 could only be resorted to when there was a breakdown of constitutional machinery, as distinguished from an ordinary breakdown of law and order. It said in no case should a state Assembly be dissolved without Parliament’s approval. A test of numerical strength could only be conducted on the floor of the Assembly and not outside it.  

In Rameshwar Prasad and Others vs Union of India, 2006, the Supreme Court felt that the governor’s actions could be examined if they were perceived to be mala fide. While deciding on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of a proclamation by Bihar governor Buta Singh ordering the dissolution of the Assembly, the court struck down the imposition of Article 356 as “unconstitutional” but refused to restore the Assembly because another election had already been ordered. 

With so many examples of its abuse, does Article 356 serve any purpose today?

Afroz Alam, associate professor and head, department of political science, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad, feels it has lost its utility. 

“Once the very provision is deleted, party loyalties will not prevail over the discharge of constitutional duties. The President will not have to be subservient to the ruling party. The Cabinet will not have to blackmail state governments. Similarly, governors and Speakers of state legislative Assemblies will not have the opportunity to work beyond their constitutional mandate,” he reasons.

Singh too feels the broad ambit and scope of Article 356 and connected provisions have immense scope for disturbing the federal structure envisaged under the Constitution. 

But legal luminaries also feel that in spite of its drawbacks, Article 356 is still necessary for a country like India. 

“Ours is a union of India. If we do not have Article 356 then any state can go out of the jurisdiction of India. If any Assembly passes a resolution saying we do not have faith in the Indian Constitution and says it will abide by the Constitution of another country, then the central government will not be able to do anything about it. The article has been introduced with a purpose to ensure that everyone should have faith in the Constitution. It is the duty of the central government to ensure that everybody acts within the Constitution of India,” observes Adish C. Aggarwala, senior advocate and chairman, All India Bar Association.

Nayak of Delhi High Court too feels that the importance of the article was felt many times in the recent past. “Had the article been imposed during the demolition of the Babri Masjid, things could have been different. Or for that matter during the Nellie massacre in Assam,” he says. 

The lawyer, however, feels the article can be strengthened. “It should be provided that until both Houses of Parliament approve the proclamation issued under Clause(1) of Article 356, the Legislative Assembly cannot be dissolved,” Nayak says. “Before issuing the proclamation the president or the central government should indicate to the state government the matters wherein the state government is not acting in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and give it a reasonable opportunity of redressing the situation — unless the situation is such that it would not be in the interest of security of state or defence of the country,” he concludes.