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.
It asks 3 things — 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 lets the President assume a State's government when its constitutional machinery fails; the Sarkaria Commission found it invoked 12 times up to 1967 and 62 times in the next eighteen years.
Cover
- History: the Sarkaria Commission found Article 356 invoked only 12 times up to 1967 but 62 times in the next eighteen years.
- Legal check, Bommai (1994): Proclamations open to judicial review, need relevant material, and the Court can restore a dismissed government.
- Floor test: Bommai held that a majority is tested on the floor of the House, not by the Governor's opinion.
- Parliamentary control: approval by both Houses within two months (Article 356(3)); the 44th Amendment (1978) limited extension beyond one year.
- Later cases: Rameshwar Prasad (2006) and Nabam Rebia (2016) showed that misuse can be reversed.
- Political factors: coalitions from 1989 depended on regional allies; strong regional parties and public criticism raised the cost of misuse.
- Way forward: Sarkaria called Article 356 a power of last resort; Punchhi (2010) proposed localised emergency under Articles 355 and 356.
Close with · Article 356 is now an exceptional remedy, closer to Ambedkar's hope in the Constituent Assembly that such articles would remain a dead letter.
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”
- The Sarkaria Commission found Article 356 invoked only 12 times up to 1967 but 62 times in the next eighteen years.Report of the Sarkaria Commission, Chapter VI: Emergency Provisions - Inter-State Council Secretariat ↗“Upto the end of 1967, it had been invoked only twelve times. However, in the next eighteen years, it was resorted to on as many as sixty-two occasions.”
- The Punchhi Commission (2010) examined a power to impose a localised emergency under Articles 355 and 356 instead of a whole-State takeover.Report of the Commission on Centre-State Relations (Punchhi Commission), Vol. II, March 2010 - university-hosted copy ↗“Power to Impose Localised Emergency under Articles 355 and 356”
- Dr B. R. Ambedkar told the Constituent Assembly on 4 August 1949 that the emergency articles should never be called into operation and should remain a dead letter.Constituent Assembly Debates, 4 August 1949 - Constitution of India (constitutionofindia.net) ↗“the proper thing we ought to expect is that such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead letter”
- The Sarkaria Commission described Article 356 as a power of last resort.Report of the Sarkaria Commission, Chapter VI: Emergency Provisions - Inter-State Council Secretariat ↗“Although it is a power of last resort”
Question: UPSC's CS (Main) 2023, GS Paper II — paper ↗. Approach: Minimalist IAS, checked 3 Oct 2026 (how we verify) — UPSC publishes no model answers. ·
Model answer· 362words · Minimalist IAS
Article 356 lets the President take over a State's government when its constitutional machinery fails. The Sarkaria Commission found it invoked only 12 times up to 1967 but 62 times in the next eighteen years, often against inconvenient State governments. After the mid-1990s its use fell sharply as law and politics changed.
Legal factors behind the decline
- Judicial review: S. R. Bommai (1994) made Proclamations reviewable, required relevant material showing real breakdown, and let the Court restore a dismissed government.
- 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) bars extension beyond a year without an Emergency and an Election Commission certificate.
- Reversal of misuse: Rameshwar Prasad (2006) held the Bihar Assembly's dissolution unconstitutional; Nabam Rebia (2016) restored the Arunachal Pradesh government.
Political factors behind the decline
- Coalition era: from 1989 the Centre depended on regional allies, whose State governments could not be dismissed without breaking the coalition.
- Regional parties: strong State-based parties raised the political cost of President's Rule.
- Expert and public opinion: Sarkaria called it a power of last resort; media and voters punished partisan dismissals.
| Factor | Earlier pattern | After mid-1990s |
|---|---|---|
| Test of majority | Governor's report | Floor of the House |
| Centre's politics | One dominant party | Coalitions with regional allies |
| Remedy for misuse | Dismissal stood | Courts can restore government |
Combined effect
- Durable check: use stayed low even after single-party majorities returned in 2014, so the legal check holds.
- Not ended: contested 2016 impositions in Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh were reversed by courts.
Way forward
- Graded response: the Punchhi Commission (2010) proposed a power to impose a localised emergency under Articles 355 and 356, so a troubled district need not cost a State its government.
- Objective Governors: reports based on material, with majorities always tested on the floor.
Judicial scrutiny and coalition politics have turned Article 356 from a routine weapon into an exceptional remedy, closer to Dr B. R. Ambedkar's hope in the Constituent Assembly (4 August 1949) that such articles 'would remain a dead letter'.
Prepared by Minimalist IAS to the answer standard of Shivam Singh (mentor, 7 years) · facts checked against official sources (how we verify) · updated 3 Oct 2026. UPSC publishes no model answers: compare your structure and coverage with this, then write your own.
