Introduction

Article 356, or “President’s Rule,” of the Indian Constitution enables the President to assume the administration of a state if the government is not functioning. This is a controversial rule that the central government can misuse. Since mid-1990s, the imposition of Article 356 has seen a decline. This discussion examines the legal and political factors that have led to this decline.

Legal Factors

SW2023-A9 | Supreme Court Ruling (S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994)

One of the major legal developments that had put a cap on the abuse of Article 356 is the Supreme Court’s 1994 judgement in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India. The court ruled that the invocation of President’s Rule necessitates the establishment of the failure of the government of a state. It also established judicial review, allowing the Supreme Court to judge the legality of such decisions. The ruling had made it difficult for the central government to use of Article 356 without strong justification.

Judicial Scrutiny and Later Cases

In the aftermath of the Bommai ruling, courts have adopted a more alert and vigorous stance towards the validity of grounds on which President’s Rule should be invoked. Many subsequent cases have only strengthened the principles established in Bommai, leading to a more cautious application of Article 356. The risk that any ruling could be overturned, and a new judicial intervention, has deterred the central government.

Legal Reforms and Guidelines

The central government was forced to issue clarification on the procedure for invoking Article 356 in the wake of the Bommai verdict. Under the new guidelines, the Governor must now report to the President in detail the situation and provide evidence of government failure. These processes have improved transparency and enhanced the legal structure applied to the action of Article 356.

Political Factors

Multi-Party Coalition Governments

Since the mid-1990s, the bjp only controls a portion of the government, the rest under the control of a coalition of other parties. These coalitions are more heterogeneous and less centralized than single-party governments. Since they need the support of regional parties, they do use Article 356 (clamp down on states) with caution. Antagonising coalition partners makes trouble and so the centre is loath to impose President’s Rule.

The Politics of State autonomy and Regional Hegemony

I have access to data until October 2023. States can be more proactive in asserting their rights under the Constitution, very often galvanizing public and political support against the imposition of President’s Rule. This assertiveness makes it political risky for the central government to use Article 356 without strong justification.

Public and Media Watchfulness

A key function of the media is to hold the central government accountable. The media has audited the implementation of individuals leaving the measures under Article 356. Negative media coverage and public outpouring has given the central government reason to hesitate to invoke President’s Rule.

Consequences And Effects Of Political Actors

Because implementing President’s Rule could make political fallout – e.g., a loss of voter trust, and credibility. In a democracy, such actions could hurt the central government in the elections. Moreover, political parties are cognizant of these adverse impacts and thus, frequently pursue alternative approaches to remedy governance challenges.

Shifts in the Political Scene

India’s political landscape has been transformed since the mid-1990s. The decline of single-party dominance and the rise of regional and caste-based politics have made it far harder for the central government to justify recourse to President’s Rule. The Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha comprise of diverse political interests who would not let the central government take such an action easily.

Conclusion

There have been both legal and political reasons, which has led to a decline in the application of Article 356 since the mid-1990s. Separated by law, S. R. Bommai v. Union of India and closer court scrutiny have made the central government more accountable, and the process more transparent. On the political front, the emergence of coalition governments and increasing state autonomy have made the application of President’s Rule more cautious. Public and media scrutiny also forces the government to proceed carefully. These developments have made for a more robust democracy with a better balance of power between the central government and the states.