Article 356

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.