INTRODUCTION 

When India gained independence on 15th August 1947, there were various challenges before our leaders to make this country politically stable and strong and for that, it was essential to have such a constitution that could guide the political leaders to run the country smoothly. As we know we got our constitution on 26th January 1950, which is celebrated as Republic Day in India. We have the biggest written constitution in the world. Our constitution is unique as it is comprised of the features of a federal as well as a unitary form of government. However, today, we are going to talk about one of the most unique features of our constitution which none of the democratic countries in the world have except Pakistan, and that is the Emergency provisions. Part XVIII of the constitution of India covers articles from 352 to 360, which deal with different forms of emergency. 

                        Now, we are going to deal with the most controversial article of our constitution which is one of the forms of emergency and that is Article 356. Article 356 is about proclaiming a state emergency in a state. 

WHAT IS ARTICLE 356?

The genesis of this form of emergency is traced from Section 93 of the Government of India Act 1935; which was brought into existence by the British government to control the provincial governments. Although, at that time all the political parties of the country opposed it, however, when the same provision was about to be accepted by the members of the constituent assembly with some modifications then the tussle was seen in thoughts of them. In addition to the above source, there is another source of emergency provision relating to its impact on fundamental rights from the constitution of the Wiemer Republic. This Article is known for many other terms like State Emergency, President's Rule, and Constitutional Emergency.

If one wants to understand the concept of Article 356, one needs to develop a good understanding of three articles such as Article 355, Article 356, and Article 365, and those are elaborated in the following manner: 

• Article 355: This article imposes a duty on the Union government to protect the states against external aggression and internal disturbance. Further, this article states that the centre should ensure that every state is carried on as per the provisions of the constitution. 
• Article 356: This article gives authority to the President of India to proclaim an emergency in a state if the state is unable to work according to the provisions of the constitution or if there is a failure of the constitutional machinery or the breakdown of the constitutional machinery. This can be done as per the written report of the concerned governor of the state or otherwise.
  Here the term "otherwise' is controversial because it does not give a clear picture of the meaning of the term. Hence this was one of the issues of ideological differences and issue of debate among the members of the constituent assembly. 
• Article 365: If the state fails to adhere to the directions of the union government to implement the functions which are mentioned in the constitution in such a scenario the President has the authority to hold the situation under his hand. 
  

PROCLAMATION, PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL, AND REVOCATION OF PRESIDENT'S RULE

Proclamation: 

State Emergency or Constitutional Emergency or the President's rule can be proclaimed by the President of India either by his satisfaction or on the written report of the governor of that state to impose an emergency due to the breakdown of constitutional emergency. The president, however, can do this with the advice of the cabinet. 

Parliamentary Approval: 

Parliamentary approval is a significant element for the prolonged existence of state emergency. There are two cases in which parliamentary approval is possible. In the first case, if the Lok Sabha is in session then the proposal needs to be passed within 60 days from both houses of the parliament with a simple majority, and then the President's rule can be prolonged for 6 months from the date of the issuance of President's rule in the concerned state. In the second case, if the Lok Sabha is not in session then the proposal needs to be passed within 30 days from its first sitting with the same conditions which have been mentioned in the first case. 

Having been in 6 months state emergency if the condition of the state is not in a position to run by itself then the President again can increase the 6 months duration of the emergency by following the same procedure of parliamentary approval. If, however, the condition of the state is not in a suitable position and the President wants to continue the emergency beyond one year then there is a provision that has been added through the 44th Amendment Act 1978 to put restraint on the power of Parliament to extend the President's Rule. Those conditions are mentioned below:

• The first condition is that in either some part of the country or in the whole country the national emergency should be in existence. 
• Secondly, the Election Commission of India should have the view that in the present situation to get the election conducted is not possible.

 In such a situation the emergency can be prolonged in a state with the prior mentioned procedure till the maximum period of 3 years concerning the date of issuance of emergency in the concerned state. 

Revocation: 

The President can revoke the President's Rule at any time and for that, no parliamentary approval is required. 

AFTERMATH OF ENFORCEMENT OF ARTICLE 356

After imposing President's Rule on a state some drastic changes can be seen concerning the political and administrative powers of the state government and governor. In addition to this, some changes can also be seen in the form of the addition to the powers of the President. Let's take a look at those changes through the following points: 

• All the legislative and executive powers of the state government and the governor come into the hands of the President of India. 
• The president can suspend or dismiss the state government( the state legislative assembly). 
• The president can assign all the law-making functions of the state to the hands of the Parliament. 
• The Parliament passes the state legislative bills and budget as well. 
• The Parliament can delegate the power to make laws for the state to the President or any other authority specified by him. 
• On behalf of the President, the Governor looks after the administrative responsibilities with the assistance of the chief secretary or any other delegated authority that's the reason why the imposition of Article 356 is also called the President's rule. 
• President can take all necessary steps including the suspension of the constitutional provisions relating to any body or authority in the state. 
• If the Lok Sabha is not in session, the President can authorize to do expenses from the state consolidated fund of the state.
• If the Lok Sabha is not in session, the President can promulgate ordinances for the governance of the state. 

                       When the emergency ceases to operate in the state all the previous laws will still be in existence but whichever political party forms the government can repeal alter or re-enact. There is one noteworthy fact that the powers and jurisdiction of the High Court will remain unaffected.

DEBATE OF CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OVEARTICLELE 356 

When the discussion was going on about the emergency provisions before the members of the constituent assembly, there was a great debate concerning its incorporation into the Indian Constitution. Numerous members had views against the incorporation of this provision in the constitution on account of some issues with it such as: 

• The federal character of the Constitution will be destroyed and the union will become all-powerful.
• The powers of the street both the union and the units will entirely be concentrated in the hands of the union executive.
• The president will become a dictator because the enormous powers of a state will come to his hand and the Union government will do what they feel like doing. 

                            However, due to the reliable views of Dr. Ambedkar and some others, it was incorporated into the constitution. Let's pay attention to the outlook of the members of the constituent assembly.

H.V. Kamath observed, "I feared that by this single chapter we are seeking to lay the foundation of our totalitarian state, a police state, a state completely opposed to all the ideals and principles that we have held aloft during the last few decades, a state where the rights and liberties of millions of innocent men and women will be in continuous jeopardy, a state where if there be peace, it will be the piece of the grave and the void of the desert(...) It will be a day of shame and sorrow when the president makes use of these Powers having no parallel in any Constitution of the democratic countries of the world."

T. T. Krishnamachari feared that 'by means of these the provisions the president and the executive would be exercising a form of a constitutional dictatorship'.

                            However, there were some views of the members who had a positive attitude towards it as well like:

Sir Alladi Krishnaswami Ayyar labeled them as 'the very life-breath of the constitution'. 

Mahavir Tyagi opined that they would work as a 'safety valve' and thereby help in the maintenance of the constitution. 

Dr. Ambedkar had also accepted the possibility of their misuse. He observed, 'I do not altogether deny that there is a possibility of the Articles being abused or employed for political purposes'. 

"The intervention of the Centre must be deemed to be barred because that would be an invasion of the sovereign authority of the province (state). That is a fundamental proposition that we must accept because of the fact that we have a Federal Constitution. That being so, if the Centre is to interfere in the administration of provincial affairs, it must be under some obligation which the Constitution imposes upon the Centre. The proper thing we ought to expect is that such Articles will never be called into operation and that they will remain a dead letter. If at all they are brought into operation, I hope the President who is endowed with this power will take proper precautions before actually suspending the administration of the province."

HOW WAS ARTICLE 356 EXPLICITLY MISUSED? 

When ultimately Dr. Ambedkar thought to incorporate the President's Rule in the constitution he said that the Union government will use it as a dead letter, when there is no option to use to sustain the democratic system of the state. However, the President's Rule was used as a death letter, not as a dead letter by the union governments. There were two reasons for the imposition of the President's Rule; one was told by the government and that was usually the failure of constitutional machinery and the second was hidden which was actually to make the government of the opposition party in a state feeble so that their own can become strong in the eyes of the people. There were very few occasions when there was an actual need to apply Article 356 or the President's Rule. 

So far more than 125 times this article has been used. For the first time, it was used in 1951 in Punjab. In the year 1977, when the very first time a non-congress party government was formed which was Janta party headed by Morarji Desai imposed President's Rule on nine Congress party-headed governments on the ground that the assemblies in those states no longer represented the wishes of the electorate. As a retaliation, when the Congress party came into power in 1980, it dismissed the nine non-congress party-led state governments on the same ground. In 1992, the Union government imposed Article 365 in three BJP-ruled states on the ground that the state governments are not imposing a ban on religious groups mentioned by the center. 

In a nutshell, If I talk about the enforcement of Article 356 by the previous governments then the figures will be like this:

• Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru's government used it 6 times till 1959. 
• Mrs. Indira Gandhi's government used as many as 27 times. 
• Janta Party's government imposed 9 times in its tenure from 1977-1980.
• P.V. Narasimha Rao's government applied the President's Rule at a time in three states. 

CASE LAW CONCERNED WITH ARTICLE 356 

S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994) is a landmark case in the history of India pertaining to bring proper guidelines for the Union government to impose Article 356. It was a 9-judge bench judgment of the Supreme Court. Some of the glimpses of the big judgment are given in this way: 

• The dissolution of assemblies is a latent misuse of Article 356. 
• In the case of the Hung assembly, the government can be suspended but cannot be dismissed without the approval of the parliament.
• In case the Parliament fails to approve the proclamation, the assembly would get reactivated. 
• The presidential proclamation is subject to judicial review.
• The satisfaction of the President must be based on relevant material. If the action of the president proves erroneous irrelevant or malafide, the proclamation will be struck down by the court of law. 
• Secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Hence, if a state promotes anti-secular, that state is liable to come under Article 356. 

WAY FORWARD 

Article 356 or President's Rule is significant in the constitution from the perspective of settling down peace and a stable environment so that the elected government can run the administration of the state correctly. If we take the recent example of Manipur where article 356 or the state emergency was imposed by the Union government led by Mr Narendra Modi in May 2023 people are suffering from huge conflict within the state. So far more than 160 deaths have been enrolled in the state. Efforts are still going on to stabilize the chaotic condition in the state. 

However, if we want that the use of Article 356 should be in a proper vase only then we need to follow the guidelines of the Sarkaria Commission(1988) and the judgment of B.R. Bommai Case(1994). We have already talked about let's see the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission on the use of Article 356 through the following points: 

• Article 356 should be used as the last tool the apply.
• The president's rule should be invoked on a written report of the Governor and that report should be publicly available. 
• Before imposing Article 356 a reasonable opportunity has to be given to the state government to rectify the issues.
• The Governor should look for an alternate option of government from the opposition parties of the concerned state.

                              Thus, the Union government needs to utilize its concern in this direction relating to the proper use of Article 356 and keep away politics from it. 

REFERENCE 

• Constitution of India by D.D Basu.
• Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume IX, p. 105, p. 123, p. 177, p. 547.

.    .    .