"If the President, either on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise , is satisfied that a situation has arisen that in which the Government of State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, he may make a proclamation to that effect".
While talking in layman language Article 356 it provides for the imposition of President rule in any States. There are situations in which emergency proclamation can be issued by the President. I.e
(1) Where Governor of any States convey the President through a report that in his view State is not govern Constitutionally, or
(2) the President himself satisfied that from any other sources that the State is not comply with the provisions of the Constitution,
Thus, whenever there is a breakdown of Constitutional mechanism in a State or failure on the part of a State to comply with the directions given by the Union or if a Governor thinks that the State is not functioning as per the provisions of Constitution, he/she may convey President through a report that in his view State is not in a position to carried out its duty, then proclamation on such ground can be issued by President under Article 356. The power to impose State emergency lies with President. Beside this under Article 355 of Indian Constitution it cast a duty on Union Government towards State to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Clause (3) of Article 356 requires that every proclamation issued under Article 356 shall be laid before each house of the parliament and it shall remain in operation for 2 months from the date it is made by President. In order to impose State emergency or proclamation for such shall required to be approved by the Houses of Parliament within the said period of 2 months. Whereas, proclamation is issued at a time when the House of people is dissolved during the period of 2 months and if the Council of States approved the resolution but no resolution passed by House of people for such proclamation before the expiration of 2 months then the proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of 30 days from the day on which the House of People sits after its reconstitution. Once the Houses of Parliament approved the resolution for imposition of State emergency under Article 356 it shall remain in force for the period of 6 months unless it is revoked earlier. And where the situation is arise that it becomes necessary to extend the emergency, such can be made by passing resolutions approving it's continuance for each time period of 6 months. The maximum period for which a proclamation can remain in operation is three years from the date it is issued under Article 356 and a resolution for proclamation under Article 356 shall be passed by simply majority of members present.
Constitutional 44th Amendment, 1978 has made certain changes relating to Article 356. It made it more federal. That a proclamation so issued would be in force only for a period of six months in the first instance that it cannot exceed 1 year ordinarily. And if it is required to be continued in operation beyond the period of one year from the date of its issue, two conditions precedent are need to be fulfilled. In such cases resolution shall not be passed by either House of Parliament unless -
(a) a proclamation of emergency is in operation in the whole of India or in the whole or any part of the State at the time of passing of such resolution for the continuance of proclamation beyond one year,
(b) that, the Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of proclamation is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned.
Consequences of issuance of proclamation under Article 356
On the issuance of proclamation under Article 356, President may assume himself all the powers and functions that are vested on Government of the State. He may also declare that the powers of legislature of the State shall be exercisable under the authority of Parliament i.e Parliament may confer the law making power of the State legislature to President and further delegate this power on any other authority with subject to certain conditions as the President may think fit to impose.
Any law made by the President or by other authority while exercising the power of the Legislature of the State, shall continue to remain in force even after the proclamation has ceased to operate, until repealed or amended by competent authority. Though, the President may enjoy almost all the powers of the State but Judiciary being an independent pillar of our democracy one cannot over-reached it's functions i.e The President however under Article 356 cannot assume to himself any of the powers vested in High Court nor he can suspend any provisions of the Constitution in whole or in part relating to the High Court.
Landmark case
S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India
This was one of the prominent case where the Court discussed the provisions of Article 356 and it's validity. The court in this case laid down certain guidelines and held that the President rule imposed will be open to Judicial review. That is to say Court can ask on what basis is the proclamation based ? Or is there any malafide intention behind this? And if the Court find the malafide use of power then State Government can reinstate e.g In 2016, Supreme Court restored the Congress rule in Arunachal Pradesh and declared the Governor's decision as unconstitutional and liable to be quashed.
Fact of the case were that S.R Bommai was the Chief Minister of Janata Dal Government in Karnataka between August 13, 1988 and April 21, 1989. On April 15, 1989, the Ministry was expanded which caused dissatisfaction to some of the aspirants. Due to which, one Kalyan Molakery and others defected from Janata Dal and wrote letters to Governor enclosing the letters of 19 others, expressing want of confidence in Shri S.R Bommai. On April 19, 1989, the Governor sent a report to the President stating that there were disagreement in the Janata Dal. On April 21, 1989, Karnataka Government was dismissed under Article 356 and President's rule was imposed. S.R Bommai moved to the Supreme Court against the decision of Governor to recommend President's rule. Earlier he went to Karnataka High Court which dismissed his writ petition. Then, on 11 March 1994, a nine judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court issued the historic order which put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State Government under Article 356. The Apex Court held that the proclamation issued by the President to dismiss the State Government is not absolute. Governor's report and the facts stated in this case was appeared to be only basis of dismissing the Government. President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly until the proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Important guidelines that laid down in this case
(1) Article 356 confers extraordinary power on the President. This power should be exercised carefully and with great circumspection.
(2) There is a limitation on the powers of President under Article 356(3), therefore he shall not take any irreversible action until the proclamation is approved by both houses of the parliament. If the two houses of parliament do not approve the issuance of proclamation, both the State Government and State Assembly can be revived. President may dissolve the State Legislative Assembly as only a part of the proclamation.
(3) A High Court or the Supreme Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition questioning the proclamation if it is satisfied that the writ petition raises the validity of the proclamation.
(4) If the Proclamation issued is held invalid by the Court, then it will be open to the Court to restore the status quo ante (the existing state of affairs) to the issuance of the proclamation and hence to restore the Legislative Assembly and the Ministry.
(5) The proper course for testing the strength of the Ministry or majority enjoyed by Council of Ministers shall be tested on the floor of the House not in Governor office except where the holding of the floor test was considered not possible for reasons given in writing.
(6) Article 356 invoke only when there is a breakdown of Constitutional mechanism and not administrative machinery.
In Rameshwar Prasad vs. Union of India, the Apex Court has ruled that "maladministration", "Corruption by a State Government" would not be grounds for invoking power under Article 356. Further, that "likelihood of defection" would not be a relevant consideration for the Governor to report under Article 356.
In a recent case of Reddi Govinda vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and others, the Court clubbed 14 Habeas corpus Petition alleging police excesses in Andhra Pradesh. The High Court on Oct. 1, 2020, asked the State Advocate General to come prepare to assist the Court as to whether in circumstances which are prevailing in a State of Andhra Pradesh, the Court can record a finding that there is constitutional breakdown in the State or not.
Though, in this case judiciary plays the role of State executive which was question by Jagan Reddy Government and approached Supreme Court to stay the disturbing order of Andhra Pradesh High Court to examine the breakdown of Constitutional machinery. They contended that it impinges the doctrine of seperation of powers since it is the President who is empowered under Article 356 and not the judiciary. Though here the question arise "Can judiciary impose President rule under Article 356"? The answer for this is yes, judiciary can impose President rule under Article 356 by virtue of the word "otherwise" in the provision of Article 356 and because of this subjectivity judiciary has also power under Article 356 to impose President rule in any State.
Conclusion
Article 356 was borrowed from Section 93 of Government of India Act, 1935. The intention behind the inclusion of this article was clearly stated in Sarkaria Commission report. Only in rarest of rare case it would be used but on factual ground it has been used over 100 times till now. This Article has also been misused with a malafide intention which result in destroying the federal nature of our Constitution. Democracy and federalism are basic features of our Indian Constitution. The Union and States co-exist on the spirit of federalism.The abuse of Article 356 is threat to our basic features of Constitution. Our India is a diverse cultures and traditions, and to maintain it there need to be regional governments to give effect to the needs and aspirations of people. Federalism is one such feature that holds this diversity together. Therefore the extraordinary measures like President rule must only be used to meet exigencies.