Recommending President’s rule in Maharashtra, Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari said the formation of a stable government has not been possible even 15 days after the declaration of election results.

In practice, President’s rule has been imposed under one of the following circumstances.

* A state legislature is unable to elect a leader as chief minister for a time prescribed by the governor.

* Breakdown of a coalition leading to the chief minister having minority support in the House and the chief minister fails / will definitely fail to prove otherwise, within a time prescribed by the governor.

* Loss of majority in the Assembly due to a vote of no-confidence in the House.

* Election postponed for unavoidable reasons such as war, epidemic or natural disasters.

* Article 356 states that President’s rule can be invoked in a state on the report of the governor if the state machinery / legislature fails to abide by constitutional norms.

Current status in Maharashtra

* This is not the end of the road for government formation in Maharashtra. In fact, all players now have time to work out their alliances and head to the Raj Bhavan to stake their claim.

* Any proclamation under Article 356 - which stands for six months - has to be approved by both Houses in the Parliament session following it. This six-month time-frame can be extended in phases, up to three years.

* With the Assembly in suspended animation, it means the stakeholders - BJP, Shiv Sena, NCP and Congress - can approach the governor any time with the required proof of support to prove majority on the floor of the House. The EC notification on the election will be treated as the new Assembly having been constituted.

Similar precedents

This is not the first time President’s rule has been imposed following an election that did not lead to government formation. For instance, no party could mobilise a majority in Bihar following an election in February 2005. President’s rule, which was imposed on March 7, 2005, lasted 262 days until November 24. It was lifted after a fresh election in November.

A hung verdict in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly election of 2002 led to the imposition of President’s rule for 15 days, from October 18 to November 2.

The National Conference had emerged the single largest party, but was short of a majority. The PDP and the Congress formed a coalition government after prolonged negotiations. PDP leader Mufti Mohammad Sayeed became the chief minister for the first three years and Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad for the remaining three years. The alliance also included the Panthers Party.

In the Uttar Pradesh Assembly election of 2002, no party could secure a majority. This led to the imposition of President’s rule for 56 days, from March 3 to May 2, 2002. Then the BSP and the BJP struck a deal and Mayawati became the chief minister on May 3. The alliance collapsed a year later and Mayawati resigned in August 2003. This was followed by the assumption of power by the Samajwadi Party with the support of BSP rebels.

Criticism

Article 356 gave wide powers to the central government to assert its authority over a state if civil unrest occurs, and the state government does not have the means to end it. Though the purpose of this Article is to give more power to the central government to preserve the unity and integrity of the nation, it has often been misused by the ruling parties at the Centre, who used it as a pretext to dissolve state governments ruled by political opponents.

Thus, it is seen by many as a threat to the federal system. Since the adoption of the Constitution in 1950, the Centre has used this Article several times to dissolve elected state governments by imposing President’s rule.

The Article was used for the first time in Uttar Pradesh in 1954. It was also used in Patiala and East Punjab States Union and during the Vimochana Samaram to dismiss the democratically elected communist state government of Kerala on July 31, 1959.

In the 1970s and 80s, it was common for the Centre to dismiss state governments led by Opposition parties. The Indira Gandhi regime and Janata Party were noted for this practice. 

Between 1966 and 1977, Indira’s government is known to have imposed President’s rule 39 times in different states. Similarly, the Janata Party, which came to power after Emergency, invoked President’s rule in nine states that were ruled by the Congress.

The practice was curbed only after the Supreme Court established strict guidelines for imposing President’s rule in its ruling on the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case in 1994. This landmark judgment has helped curtail the widespread misuse of Article 356.

The judgment established strict guidelines for imposing President’s rule. Subsequent pronouncements by the SC in Jharkhand and other states have further limited the scope for the misuse of Article 356. Since the early 2000s, the number of cases of imposition of President’s rule has been drastically reduced.

Article 356 has always been the focal point of a wider debate of the federal structure. The Sarkaria Commission report on Centre-state relations in 1983 had recommended that Article 356 must be used “very sparingly, in extreme cases, as a measure of last resort, when all other alternatives fail to prevent or rectify a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state”.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store