President's rule
President's rule (or central rule) is a term used in India when a state is placed under direct federal rule. It is called president's rule as the President of India governs the state instead of a Council of Ministers headed by a elected Chief Minister accountable to the state legislature.
President's rule is enabled by Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which gives authority to impose central rule if there has been failure of the constitutional machinery in any state of India. During President's Rule, a Governor appointed by the Central Government assumes executive authority. Since the governor is appointed by the President of India on the advice of the central government, the state's policies are controlled by the ruling party at the centre. During President's Rule, the Governor appoints advisor(s), who are retired civil servants, to help in administration. The advisors act in lieu of state ministers.
Contents |
[edit] When is President's Rule imposed?
In practice president's rule has been imposed under different circumstances such as
1. State Legislature is unable to elect a leader as Chief Minister
2. Break down of Coalition
3. Irretrivable break down of law and order
4. Rebellion or insurgency in a part of India
5. Elections are postponed due to unavoidable reasons
6. Malafide use of powers by Central Governments. Was common until the mid nineties, until stopped due to judicial prononouncements
[edit] Instances of President's Rule
| Indian State | Date From | Date To | Reasons & Comments | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andhra Pradesh | 11 Jan 1973 | 10 Dec 1973 | Break down of Law & Order due to Telangana agitation | |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 03 Nov 1979 | 18 Jan 1980 | ||
| Assam | 12 Dec 1979 | 05 Dec 1980 | ||
| Assam | 30 Jun 1981 | 13 Jan 1982 | ||
| Assam | 19 Mar 1982 | 27 Feb 1983 | ||
| Assam | 28 Nov 1990 | 30 Jun 1991 | ||
| Bihar | 07 Mar 2005 | 24 Nov 2005 | Indecisive outcome of elections. | |
| Goa | 02 Dec 1966 | 05 Apr 1967 | Then Union Territory of Goa's Assembly was dissolved to conduct Opinion Poll to determine whether Goa should be merged with Maharashtra. | |
| Goa | 27 Apr 1979 | 16 Jan 1980 | ||
| Goa | 14 Dec 1990 | 25 Jan 1991 | ||
| Goa | 09 Feb 1999 | 09 Jun 1999 | ||
| Goa | 04 Mar 2005 | 07 Jun 2005 | ||
| Jammu & Kashmir | 06 Mar 1986 | 07 Nov 1986 | Loss of majority | |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 19 Jan 1990 | 09 Oct 1996 | Insurgency and break down of law and order. | |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 18 Oct 2002 | 02 Nov 2002 | Indecisive outcome of elections. | |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 11 Jul 2008 | 05 Jan 2009 | Loss of Majority following collapse of coalition. Then CM Mr. Gulam Nabi Azad's decision to transfer land for Amarnath pilgrimage led to PDP pulling out of coalation Govt. | |
| Jharkhand | 19 Jan 2009 | 29 Dec 2009 | Loss of Majority | |
| Jharkhand | 1 Jun 2010 | 11 Sep 2010 | Loss of Majority | |
| Karnataka | 19 Mar 1971 | 20 Mar 1972 | Loss of Majority | |
| Karnataka | 31 Dec 1977 | 28 Feb 1978 | Govt. dismissed in spite of Congress CM Mr. Devraj Urs enjoying majority support in Assembly | |
| Karnataka | 21 Apr 1989 | 30 Nov 1989 | Loss of Majority of CM Mr. S. R. Bommai, followed by dissolution of Assembly. On an appeal by Mr. S. R. Bommai, in a landmark judgement, the Indian Supreme Court laid out the procedure to be followed befor dissolving a elected Assembly. The historic ruling in this case reduced the scope for misuse of Article 356 by future Central Governments and Governors. | |
| Karnataka | 9 Oct 2007 | 11 Nov 2007 | Loss of Majority | |
| Karnataka | 20 Nov 2007 | 27 May 2008 | Loss of Majority | |
| Kerala (Travancore-Cochin) | 23 Mar 1956 | 05 Apr 1957 | Loss of Majority following split in Congress Party | |
| Kerala | 31 Jul 1959 | 22 Feb 1960 | Govt. dismissed in spite of Communist CM Mr. EMS Namboodiripad enjoying majority support in Assembly | |
| Kerala | 10 Sep 1964 | 06 Mar 1967 | Loss of Majority followed by indecisive outcome of elections | |
| Kerala | 01 Aug 1970 | 04 Oct 1970 | Loss of Majority | |
| Kerala | 01 Dec 1979 | 25 Jan 1980 | Loss of Majority | |
| Nagaland | 20 Mar 1975 | 25 Nov 1977 | ||
| Nagaland | 07 Aug 1988 | 25 Jan 1989 | ||
| Nagaland | 02 Apr 1992 | 22 Feb 1993 | ||
| Nagaland | 03 Jan 2008 | 12 Mar 2008 | Govt. dismissed after controversial confidence vote secured in the Assembly by CM Mr. Neiphiu Rio | |
| Orissa | 09 Jan 1971 | 03 Apr 1971 | ||
| Orissa | 17 Feb 1980 | 09 Jun 1980 | Govt. dismissed in spite of Mr. Nilamani Routray enjoying majority support in Assembly | |
| PEPSU | 05 Mar 1953 | 08 Mar 1954 | President's rule was invoked in the erstwhile PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union ) State when the Akali Dal government led by Gian Singh Rarewala was dismissed. | |
| Puducherry | 18 Sep 1968 | 17 Mar 1969 | ||
| Puducherry | 03 Jan 1974 | 06 Mar 1974 | ||
| Puducherry | 28 Mar 1974 | 02 Jul 1977 | ||
| Puducherry | 12 Nov 1978 | 16 Jan 1980 | ||
| Puducherry | 24 Jun 1983 | 16 Mar 1985 | ||
| Puducherry | 04 Mar 1991 | 03 Jul 1991 | ||
| Punjab | 20 Jun 1951 | 17 Apr 1952 | ||
| Punjab | 05 Jul 1966 | 01 Nov 1966 | ||
| Punjab | 23 Aug 1968 | 17 Feb 1969 | ||
| Punjab | 14 Jun 1971 | 17 Mar 1972 | ||
| Punjab | 30 Apr 1977 | 20 Jun 1977 | ||
| Punjab | 17 Feb 1980 | 06 Jun 1980 | Govt. dismissed in spite of Mr. Parkash Singh Badal enjoying majority support in Assembly | |
| Punjab | 10 Oct 1983 | 29 Sep 1985 | Insurgency and break down of law and order | |
| Punjab | 11 Jun 1987 | 25 Feb 1992 | Insurgency and break down of law and order | |
| Tamil Nadu | 31 Jan 1976 | 30 Jun 1977 | Govt. dismissed in spite of Mr. Karunanidhi enjoying majority support in Assembly | |
| Tamil Nadu | 17 Feb 1980 | 06 Jun 1980 | Govt. dismissed in spite of Mr. M G Ramachandran enjoying majority support in Assembly | |
| Tamil Nadu | 30 Jan 1988 | 27 Jan 1989 | Govt. dismissed after controversial confidence vote secured in the Assembly by CM Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran | |
| Tamil Nadu | 30 Jan 1991 | 24 Jun 1991 | Govt. headed by Mr. M. Karunanidhi dismissed for anti national activities | |
| Uttar Pradesh | 08 Mar 2002 | 02 May 2002 | Indecisive outcome of elections. | |
[edit] Criticism
Article 356 gave wide powers to the central government to assert its authority over a state if civil unrest occurred and the state government did not have the means to end the unrest. This is one of the articles that gave the Indian constitution some amount of unitary character. Though the purpose of this article is to give more powers to central government to preserve the unity and integrity of the nation, it has often been misused[citation needed] by the ruling parties at the center. It has been used as a pretext to dissolve state governments ruled by political opponents[citation needed]. Thus, it is seen by many as a threat to the federal state system. Since the adoption of Indian constitution in 1950, the central government has used this article several times[citation needed] [1]to dissolve elected state governments and impose President's rule.
The article was used for the first time in Punjab on 20 June 1951. It has also been used in the state of Patiala and East Punjab States union (PEPSU) and then during Vimochana samaram to dismiss the democratically elected Communist state government of Kerala on 31 July 1959. In the 1970s and 1980s it almost became common practice for the central government to dismiss state governments led by opposition parties[citation needed]. The Indira Gandhi regime and post-emergency Janata Party were noted for this practice. It is only after the landmark judgement in 1994 in the S. R. Bommai v. Union of India case that the misuse of Article 356 was curtailed. In this case, the Supreme Court established strict guidelines for imposing president's rule. Subsequent pronouncements by the Supreme Court in Jharkand and other states have further whetted down the scope for misuse of Article 356. Hence since the early 2000, the number of cases of imposition of President's rule has come down drastically.
Article 356 has always been the focal point of a wider debate of the federal structure of government in Indian polity. The Sarkaria Commission on Center-State relations has recommended that Article 356 must be used "very sparingly, in extreme cases, as a measure of last resort, when all the other alternatives fail to prevent or rectify a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state".[citation needed]
[edit] See also
[edit] References and external links
- ^ Ahmadi J., S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1, 296-297, ¶ 434 cited in http://www.ejcl.org/81/art81-4.html