good

1. ARTICLE 356
Article 356 is inspired by sections 93 of the
Government of India Act, 1935,
 which provided that if a Governor of a province
was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which
the government of the province cannot be carried
on in accordance with the provisions of the said
Act, he could assume to himself all or any of the
powers of the government and discharge those
functions in his discretion.
 The Governor, however, could not encroach
upon the powers of the high court

2. • 356. 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 he
provisions of this Constitution, the President may be
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;

3. (c)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 issued under this article
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

4. (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,

5. • State of Rajasthan v. Union of India AIR 1977,A
seven member constitution bench of the
supreme court by an unanimous judgment
rejected the petitioners petition and upheld the
centre action of dissolving assemblies under Art.
356 as constitutionally valid. The court held that
the satisfaction of the president cannot be
question in any court.
• The court observed that if the satisfaction is mala
fide or is based on wholly extraneous and
irrelevant grounds the court would have
jurisdiction to examine it because in that case
there would be no satisfaction of the president

6. • S.R.Bommai vs. Union of India
• Kuldeep Singh
• B.Sawant
• Katikithala Ramaswamy
• C.Agarwal
• Yogeshwar Dayal
• P.Jeevan Reddy
• R.Pandian
• M.Ahmadi
• S.Verma

7. • Introduction:
• This case relates to State emergency u/art 356. State emergency is
incomplete without this case being discussed. The major part of this
case is about the Centre State relation.
• Facts of the case:
• The situation in Karnataka in 1989 April was clogged and led to
state emergency u/art 356(1). This proclamation was thereafter
confirmed by the Parliament.
• The situation which led to state emergency was that S.R.Bommai a
personal of Janta Party formed the government in 1988, but
subsequently joined the Lok Dal forming a collision government as
Janta Dal.
• But soon there were bifurcations amongst the party members
leading to fall of the Government.
• Therefore the President had to proclaim emergency.
• This proclamation was challenged through Writ Petition but the
High Court dismissed the Petition. Hence appeal to Supreme Court.

8. • Issues:
• Whether President Proclamation u/art 356 is
justified?
• Whether the President has unrestricted power
to proclaim emergency?
• Whether the proclamation can be challenged
even after approved by both the houses of
Parliament?

9. • Judgement:
• The Proclamation of emergency u/art 356 is
subject to Judicial Review. The relevancy and the
need of such proclamation shall be struck down
by the concerned court if found malafide.
• The Power of President under 356 is subject to
restrictions. The opinion is formed is based on
the report of the Governor and not sole
satisfaction.
• The Supreme Court can struck down the
proclamation even if both the houses of
Parliament passes the same on Malafide grounds.

10. • Sarkaria’s Commission Report
• The factors on which judicial review can be carried on differ from
one case to another and therefore, no rules as such can be stuck on
it. In this aspect, the Court heavily relied on the Sarkaria
Commission Report, 1987. The cases in which the application of Art
356 would be held good i.e., the justifiability of President’s Rule is
maintainable when there is failure of Constitutional Machinery in
certain instances. The instances are broadly classified into four
heads, which are as follows
• (a) Political crises.
• (b) Internal subversion.
• (c) Physical breakdown.
• (d) Non-compliance with constitutional directions of the Union
Executive.
• It is not claimed that this categorization is perfect; rather it helps to
determine whether or not, in a given situation it will be proper to
invoke this last-resort power under Art 356.

11. • Court has laid down following guide lines :-
Presidential proclamation dissolving a state
legislative assembly is subject to judicial review.
If a state government works against secularism
,president rule can be imposed
No wholesale dismissal of opposition ruled states
government when a new political party assumes
power at the centre.
If president rule is imposed only on political
considerations the court can even restore the
assembly

12. Imposition of presidents rule and dissolution
of state assembly cannot be done together.
State assembly can be dissolved only after
parliament approves central rule.
The supreme court and high court can compel
the union government to disclose material on
whose basis president rule is imposed on state
The power of president under art.356 is a
constitutional power, it is not absolute power.
The existence of material is a pre-condition to
form the satisfaction to impose the president’s
rule

13. • In rameshwar prasad v. union of india 2006
the court held that the presidential
proclamation dissolving state assembly eas
unconstitutional and based on extraneous and
irrelevant grounds.
• The court said that the governor report
contained fanciful assumption which could be
destructive to democracy the drastic and
extreme action under art.356 cannot be
justified on mere personal opinion of the
governor.

14. Recent cases of Article 356
President’s Rule was in force in Delhi with the
Assembly in suspended animation from February
14, 2014, to February 11, 2015. This was after
Arvind Kejriwal resigned as CM after his move to
introduce the Jan Lokpal Bill fell through in the
Assembly
 Imposed in Maharashtra from September 28,
2014, to October 31, 2014, after Prithviraj Chavan
resigned following the break-up of the 15-year-
old Congress-NCP alliance in the state.

15. • In Andhra Pradesh from February 28, 2014, to
June 8, 2014, due to a political crisis caused by
the resignation of CM N Kiran Kumar Reddy and
other Congress legislators on February 19,
protesting against the Andhra Pradesh
Reorganisation Bill that bifurcated the state and
created a separate state of Telangana.
• In Jharkhand from January 18, 2013, to July 12,
2013, as the Arjun Munda-led BJP government
was reduced to a minority after the Jharkhand
Mukti Morcha withdrew support. Munda
resigned and sought dissolution of the state
Assembly.

16. • President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh under Article 356
• The decision has come under the scanner of the Supreme
Court which has sought the report of Governor Jyoti Prasad
Rajkhowa recommending central rule in the state. While
seeking the report, the court described imposition of
President’s rule in the north-eastern state as “too serious a
matter”.
• After hearing Congress’ petition the apex court issued
notices to the Centre seeking its response by Friday before
fixing coming Monday as the day of next hearing.
• The Congress will file fresh petition challenging the
President’s Rule.
• This hearing was on a related constitutional matter
emanating due to conflict between the stance of the state
Governor on the one side and Assembly Speaker and chief
minister on the other.