Comprehensive Overview of State Emergency under
the Indian Constitution
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Legal Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
3 Grounds for Invocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4 Safeguards and Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
5 Landmark Judgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1
1 Introduction
State emergency, commonly referred to as President’s Rule, is a constitutional mechanism
under the Indian Constitution that allows the central government to assume control of
a state’s administration when the state government fails to operate in accordance with
constitutional provisions. This provision is critical for maintaining governance but has
been controversial due to its potential for political misuse. This overview, based on pages
17 to 30 of the provided document, covers the legal framework, grounds for invocation,
differences from national emergency, safeguards, and landmark judicial precedents.
2 Legal Framework
State emergency is governed by two key articles of the Indian Constitution:
• Article 356(1): This article empowers the President to proclaim a state emergency
if satisfied, based on a Governor’s report or other sources, that the state government
cannot function constitutionally. Upon proclamation:
– The President may assume the functions of the state government.
– The state legislature can be dissolved or suspended.
– The President can delegate state powers to the Governor or another authority.
• Clause (3): Approval by Parliament
– The Proclamation must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
– It ceases to operate after two months unless approved by both the Lok Sabha
and Rajya Sabha.
– If Lok Sabha is dissolved, and only Rajya Sabha approves, then it remains
valid for 30 days from the first sitting of the newly constituted Lok Sabha,
during which it must be approved.
• Clause (4): Duration of President’s Rule
– Once approved, the Proclamation remains valid for 6 months.
– Can be extended every 6 months with Parliamentary approval.
– Maximum period: 3 years.
– Exception: Punjab (1987) – President’s Rule was extended to 5 years through
constitutional amendments (64th, 67th, and 68th Amendments).
• Clause (5): Additional Safeguards
– Beyond one year, President’s Rule can be extended only if:
∗ A national emergency (Article 352) is in operation in the country or the
State.
∗ The Election Commission certifies that holding State Assembly elections
is not possible.
2
– This clause was added by the 44th Constitutional Amendment to prevent
misuse of Article 356.
• Article 357 – Legislative Powers under President’s Rule
– When Article 356 is invoked and the State Legislature is suspended or dis-
solved, Article 357 deals with how legislative powers are exercised:
∗ Parliament can delegate law-making powers to the President.
∗ Authorize the President to further delegate powers to any authority.
∗ Such laws can confer duties and powers to Union officers.
∗ Authorize expenditure from the State’s Consolidated Fund, when Lok
Sabha is not in session.
∗ Laws made during President’s Rule continue to operate even after Presi-
dent’s Rule ends, until amended or repealed by the State Legislature.
3 Grounds for Invocation
State emergency is invoked when there is a “failure of constitutional machinery” in a
state. Common grounds include:
• No political party securing a majority in the state legislature.
• A government losing its majority due to defections.
• A government acting against constitutional norms.
• Non-compliance with central government directives.
• A breakdown of law and order threatening state security.
These grounds aim to ensure governance continuity but have been criticized for enabling
central interference in state autonomy.
4 Safeguards and Amendments
To prevent misuse, the 44th Amendment (1978) introduced safeguards:
• Parliamentary approval is required within two months of the proclamation.
• Extensions beyond one year are permissible only under specific conditions, such as
a national emergency or Election Commission certification.
• Judicial oversight has evolved, allowing courts to review proclamations for validity.
These measures aim to balance central authority with state autonomy, addressing con-
cerns over arbitrary use.
5 Landmark Judgments
The judiciary has played a pivotal role in defining the scope and limits of Article 356
through landmark judgments:
3
1. Bijayanand Patnaik v. President of India (1974):
• Facts: In 1973, the Odisha government collapsed due to defections from the
Congress Party. Bijayanand Patnaik, leader of the Pragati Party with 70
seats in a 140-member assembly, was not invited to form the government.
The Governor recommended President’s Rule, citing political instability, which
Patnaik challenged in the Orissa High Court.
• Outcome: The court upheld the proclamation, ruling that the Governor’s re-
port under Article 356 is not justiciable due to immunity under Article 361(1).
The President’s decision cannot be questioned for mala fide or extraneous rea-
sons, establishing limited judicial review at the time.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977):
• Facts: After the 1977 Lok Sabha elections, the Janata Party formed the cen-
tral government, while Congress governed several states. The Union Home
Minister suggested these states dissolve their legislatures for fresh elections,
prompting Rajasthan and other states to challenge the directive as unconsti-
tutional.
• Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the suit, holding that judicial inter-
ference in Article 356 is limited unless the action is grossly perverse or uncon-
stitutional. It emphasized that political and executive decisions are generally
beyond judicial review unless specific constitutional violations are proven.
3. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994):
• Facts: In 1989, the Karnataka government, led by S.R. Bommai, was dismissed
under Article 356 due to defections, and President’s Rule was imposed. Bom-
mai challenged the proclamation, arguing it was politically motivated.
• Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled that proclamations under Article 356
are subject to judicial review. It held that President’s Rule based solely on
political considerations is invalid, and courts can restore dissolved assemblies.
The Court required the Union to disclose the material justifying the procla-
mation, ensuring the President’s power is exercised on substantive grounds.
This judgment significantly curbed misuse and reinforced federalism.
6 Conclusion
The Supreme Court ruled that President’s Rule is subject to judicial review, meaning the courts can
examine theemergency
State material on which
under the proclamation
Article was based.for addressing governance failures
356 is a vital mechanism
in a state, but its application must be cautious to preserve India’s federal structure. The
It held44th
that mere politicaland
Amendment instability
judicialorprecedents,
subjectiveparticularly
satisfactionS.R.
of the President
Bommai is not aofvalid
v. Union ground
India,
for imposing Article 356.
have established robust safeguards against arbitrary use, ensuring that proclamations
are based on objective grounds. These developments underscore the judiciary’s role in
The Court stated that objective material must support the claim of constitutional breakdown in the
state. balancing central authority with state autonomy, making state emergency a tool for
constitutional stability rather than political manipulation.
Importantly, it ruled that if a proclamation is found invalid, the Court has the power to restore the
dissolved Legislative Assembly.
This judgment became a constitutional safeguard against the misuse of central power and
strengthened India’s federal structure.
4
The Bommai judgment is regarded as a milestone in preserving democratic governance in the
states and limiting authoritarian tendencies under the guise of emergency provisions.
