Article 356 also known as President’s Rule allows the President to assume control of a state’s government in case of constitutional breakdown. Significant for maintaining national integrity and stability, it ensures center state harmony while safeguarding federal principles.The reduced frequency of using Article 356 (President’s Rule) by Union Governments since the mid 1990s can be attributed to the following legal and political factors.

Legal factors –

1. The Bommai Judgment (1994) limited Article 356’s misuse by requiring proof of constitutional breakdown and judicial review of President’s Rule.
2. Federalism limits central intervention, emphasizing state autonomy and requiring consensus, thereby reducing arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule (Article 356).
3. Judicial review empowers courts to scrutinize President’s Rule (Article 356) decisions, ensuring constitutional validity and preventing center state abuse.

Political factors – 

1. Coalition politics necessitates consensus building and compromise, discouraging unilateral imposition of President’s Rule (Article 356) by the central government.
2. Federal Front Politics refers to regional parties collective influence, constraining the central government’s ability to impose President’s Rule (Article 356).
3. Political accountability, a key factor in reducing Article 356’s use, ensures governments are responsible for their actions, facing scrutiny and consequences.
4. State level politics, fueled by strong regional leaders and parties, resist central intervention, reducing arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule (Article 356) .
5. Changes in political culture, such as increased consensus building and dialogue have reduced arbitrary use of Article 356 .