The mechanics of President's Rule

On February 13, President's Rule was imposed in Manipur following the resignation of Chief Minister N Biren Singh amid ongoing ethnic violence between the Meitei and Kuki communities. President Droupadi Murmu issued a proclamation declaring the imposition of President’s Rule in Manipur, a decision that grants the Central Government direct control over the state's administration. How and why such emergency provision is used must be a point of interest for many. Let’s understand the law behind the special legal provision.

What does the term mean?

President's Rule, also known as state emergency, refers to a situation where a state government fails to function effectively due to reasons such as political instability or law and order issues, prompting the intervention of the Centre to take control of the state's administration. It imposed in a state when the President of India, on the advice of the Union Government, is satisfied that the state government is unable to function according to the provisions of the Constitution. The emergency provisions in the Constitution, borrowed from the Weimar Constitution of Germany, are outlined in Part XVIII (Articles 352 to 360).

Consequences of President’s Rule

The Union Government assumes direct control over the state, effectively taking over the governance of the state. The state cannot make laws on matters in the State List during President’s Rule. The Union Parliament can legislate on these matters.

The Governor acts as the central government’s representative and is responsible for administering the state. The Centre can deploy central forces to maintain law and order in the state if needed.

The Centre takes over the financial administration of the state and the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers cease to function. However, the Legislative Assembly and local bodies are not dissolved.

Notably, the constitutional status, position, powers, and functions of the state’s High Court are not affected by such a proclamation. In other words, the President cannot interfere in the jurisdiction of the state’s High Court.

Legal procedure and limitations

As per Article 356, state emergency is imposed by the President if he/she is satisfied with the report of the Governor or otherwise that there is a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the state and failure to comply with the Centre's directives. President’s rule may also be invoked on other grounds such as such as when the state legislature fails to elect a Chief Minister, when there is a collapse of the coalition, when elections cannot be held due to unavoidable circumstances or when the ruling party loses its majority in the Assembly.

Proclamation of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution stands for six months. It has to be approved by both the Houses of Parliament within two months of its issuance. This means Parliament has two months to approve the Proclamation from the date of issuance of proclamation. If no approval is given, the rule will end after this period.

If Lok Sabha is dissolved during this period, the Proclamation can last for 30 more days after Lok Sabha is reconstituted, giving it time to approve the Proclamation. Now, the House of People has to approve the proclamation in these 30 days and if it does not approve it within these 30 days, the Proclamation ends.

The proclamation can last up to maximum of three years via extensions after every 6 months period. President's Rule can be revoked at any time by the President and this does not require Parliament's approval.

The 44th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1978 added a new provision that the President’s Rule can be extended beyond one year, by six months at a time, only when the following two conditions are fulfilled:

* The proclamation of National Emergency is in operation in the whole of India or in the whole or any part of the State.

* The Election Commission of India (ECI) certifies that general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State cannot be held on account of certain difficulties.

Landmark judgement

Due to the frequent misuse of Article 356 by the Central Government for political purposes, rather than addressing genuine instances of constitutional failure in states, the Supreme Court issued guidelines in the landmark SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994). In the case, the SC made significant rulings on the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356. The Court held that the President’s decision to dissolve state governments and impose central rule is subject to judicial review. This landmark judgment reinforced India's federal structure by ensuring that President's Rule could not be misused for political advantage. It emphasised the need for judicial oversight to prevent whimsical actions by the central government.

Status of fundamental rights during President’s Rule

During President's rule in a state, the status of Fundamental Rights (Part III) is largely unchanged, but there are some important aspects to note:

Fundamental Rights remain in force: Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Part III of the Indian Constitution, such as the right to equality (Article 14), freedom of speech and expression (Article 19), right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), and protection from arbitrary arrest (Article 22), continue to remain in force during President's rule.

Suspension of rights under Article 19: However, under Article 358 of the Constitution, during a national emergency, some rights, particularly under Article 19 can be suspended. But, during President’s Rule, Article 19 is not suspended unless a national emergency is declared at the same time.