Account for the legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Governments since mid 1990s.
Approach · directive: “account for”
What it asks · Explain both the legal checks (constitutional amendments and judicial review) and political shifts (coalitions, regional parties) that cut the use of President's Rule after the mid-1990s.
The question has 3 parts — answer each
- Account for the legal factors: Bommai (1994) and later judgments, and the constitutional limits on Article 356
- Account for the political factors: coalition era, regional parties and federal opinion
- Judge their combined effect, noting that use has fallen but not ended
Open with · Article 356 was used freely in the first decades to dismiss State governments, but its use fell sharply after the mid-1990s.
Cover
- Legal check, Bommai (1994): S. R. Bommai v. Union of India made proclamations subject to judicial review, requiring relevant material and allowing the Court to restore a dismissed government.
- Floor test: Bommai held that a government's majority is tested on the floor of the House, not by the Governor's opinion, and treated secularism as a basic feature.
- Parliamentary control: every Proclamation needs approval of both Houses within two months, and the 44th Amendment (1978) barred extension beyond one year except in narrow conditions.
- Later cases: Rameshwar Prasad (2006) held the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly unconstitutional, reinforcing judicial oversight.
- Political factors: coalition governments at the Centre from 1989 depended on regional parties, whose State governments could not be dismissed without losing allies.
- Federal shift: growing regional parties, the Sarkaria Commission's advice to use it only as a last resort, and public and media criticism increased the cost of misuse.
Close with · Judicial scrutiny and coalition politics together made Article 356 a truly exceptional remedy rather than a routine political tool.
Add value (verified)
- Article 356(3) makes every Proclamation lapse after two months unless both Houses of Parliament approve it. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 356(3) - Legislative Department ↗“cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament”
- Article 356(5), inserted by the 44th Amendment (1978): President's Rule cannot be extended beyond one year unless a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation and the Election Commission certifies that Assembly elections cannot be held. The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024), Article 356(5) - Legislative Department ↗“the Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of the Proclamation approved under clause (3) during the period specified in such resolution is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2023, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 30 Sept 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer · 342 words (UPSC limit 250) · Minimalist IAS
Article 356 lets the President take over a State's government when its constitutional machinery fails. Used freely for decades to dismiss inconvenient State governments, it became a rare and contested measure after the mid-1990s because the law tightened and the politics changed.
Legal factors
- S. R. Bommai (1994): the Supreme Court made Proclamations subject to judicial review, required relevant material showing a real breakdown, and held that it could restore a dismissed government and Assembly.
- Floor test: Bommai ruled that a majority is tested on the floor of the House, not by the Governor's opinion, closing the commonest route to dismissal.
- Parliamentary control: a Proclamation lapses in two months unless both Houses approve (Article 356(3)); the 44th Amendment (1978) barred extension beyond one year unless an Emergency is in force and the Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be held.
- Later enforcement: Rameshwar Prasad (2006) held the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly unconstitutional; the Court restored the Arunachal Pradesh government in 2016 (Nabam Rebia), showing that misuse can be reversed.
Political factors
- Coalition era: from 1989 governments at the Centre depended on regional allies whose State governments could not be dismissed without breaking the coalition.
- Rise of regional parties: strong State-based parties raised the political cost of imposing President's Rule and made federal bargaining routine.
- Advisory and public pressure: the Sarkaria Commission urged use only as a last resort after warning the State; media and public criticism of partisan dismissals grew.
- Alternative tools: Governors' reports are now scrutinised, and floor tests and court-monitored processes replaced summary dismissals.
Combined effect
- Legal limits raised the cost and reversibility of misuse; politics reduced the incentive. Since 2014 single-party majorities have returned at the Centre, yet use of Article 356 has stayed low, which shows the legal check holds even when the political one weakens.
- It has not disappeared: contested impositions in 2016 (Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh) were struck down or reversed by courts.
Judicial scrutiny and coalition politics together turned Article 356 from a routine political weapon into an exceptional remedy, as the Constitution intended.
Written by Minimalist IAS from facts checked at source (how we verify) — a little fuller than exam length, so every part of the question is covered; in the hall, keep the structure and trim the detail. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.