A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | CH | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2023) |
In India, President's (or Governor’s) rule is the suspension of state government and imposition of direct Union government rule in a state. Under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, if a state government is unable to function according to Constitutional provisions, the Union government can take direct control of the state machinery. Subsequently, executive authority is exercised through the centrally appointed governor, who has the authority to appoint other administrators to assist them. The administrators are usually nonpartisan retired civil servants not native to the state.
When a state government is functioning correctly, it is run by an elected Council of Ministers responsible to the state's legislative assembly (Vidhan Sabha). The council is led by the chief minister, who is the chief executive of the state; the Governor is only a constitutional head. However, during President's rule, the Council of Ministers is dissolved, later on vacating the office of Chief Minister. Furthermore, the Vidhan Sabha is either prorogued or dissolved, necessitating a new election.
Prior to 2019, the constitution of the state of Jammu and Kashmir had a similar system of Governor's rule, under its Section 92. The state's governor issued a proclamation, after obtaining the consent of the President of India allowing Governor's rule for a period of up to six months after which President's rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India can be imposed. After the revocation of Article 370, President's rule applies to Jammu and Kashmir under section 73 (since Article 356 of Constitution of India does not apply to union territories) of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
Following the 1994 landmark judgment in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of India restricted arbitrary impositions of President's rule.
Chhattisgarh and Telangana are the only states where the President's rule has never been imposed so far.[1]
Imposition in state
In practice, President's rule has been imposed in a State under any one of the following different circumstances:
- A state Assembly is unable to elect a leader as Chief Minister for a time prescribed by the Governor of that State, at the Will of Governor.
- Breakdown of a coalition leading to the Chief Minister not having majority support in the Assembly; and the Chief minister fails/will definitely fail to prove otherwise, within a time prescribed by the Governor of that state.
- Loss of majority in the Assembly due to a vote of no-confidence in the house.
- Elections postponed for unavoidable reasons like war, epidemic, pandemic or natural disasters.
- On the report of the Governor of the State that the State's constitutional machinery or legislature fails to abide by Constitutional norms.
If approved by both Houses, President's rule can continue for 6 months. It can be extended for a maximum of 3 years with the approval of the Parliament done every 6 months to maximum period of 2 years; however it can be extended repeatedly if the Election Commission of India recommends that elections are not possible. If the Lok Sabha is dissolved during this time, the rule is valid for 30 days from the first sitting of the new Lok Sabha provided that this continuance has already been approved by Rajya Sabha. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a new provision to put a restraint on the power of Parliament to extend the President's rule in a state. According to this provision, the president's rule can only be extended over a year, for 6 months, under the following conditions:
- There is already a national emergency throughout India, or in the whole or any part of the state.
- The Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be conducted in the state.
President's rule can be revoked at any time by the President and does not need Parliament's approval.
Until the mid-1990s, President's rule was often imposed in states through the abuse of authority of Governors who were in collusion with the Union government. The Supreme Court of India in March 1994 established a precedent in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, due to which such abuse has been drastically reduced.
Imposition in Union territories with a Legislative Assembly
Article 356 is not applicable to Union territories, so there are many ways by which President's rule can be imposed in different Union territories with a Legislative Assembly.
Jammu and Kashmir
Until the revocation of Article 370 and bifurcation into two Union territories, President's rule applied after the application of Governor's rule for 6 months.
After the revocation and bifurcation, the reorganized Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is subject to the section 73 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, which is used to impose President's rule as the Article 356 is not applicable to Union Territories. The provision states:
73. If the President, on receipt of a report from the Lieutenant Governor of Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir, or otherwise, is satisfied,—
(a) that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or
(b) that for the proper administration of Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir it is necessary or expedient so to do,
the President may, by order, suspend the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act for such period as he thinks fit and makes such incidental and consequential provisions as
may appear to him to be necessary or expedient for administering the Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Delhi
In NCT of Delhi, President's rule is applied on the basis of Article 239AB of the Constitution of India (as the Article 356 is not applicable to Union Territories) which reads thus:
239AB. -If the President, on receipt of a report from the Lieutenant Governor or otherwise, is satisfied—
(a)that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the National Capital Territory cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of article 239AA or of any law made in pursuance of that article; or
(b)that for the proper administration of the National Capital Territory it is necessary or expedient so to do,
the President may by order suspend the operation of any provision of Article 239AA or of all or any of the provisions of any law made in pursuance of that article for such period and subject to such conditions as maybe specified in such law and make such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear to him
to be necessary or expedient for administering the National Capital Territory in accordance with the provisions of article 239 and article 239AA.
Puducherry
In the Union Territory of Puducherry, President's rule is applied on the basis of Article 51 of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963.[2] Which thus reads
51. -If the President, on receipt of a report from the Administrator of the Union territory or otherwise, is satisfied,―
(a) that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the Union territory cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or
(b) that for the proper administration of the Union territory it is necessary or expedient so to do, the President may, by order, suspend the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act for such period as he thinks fit and make such incidental and consequential provisions as may appear to him to be necessary or expedient for administering the Union territory in accordance with the provisions of article 239.
Criticism
Article 356 gives wide powers to the Union government to assert its authority over a state if civil unrest occurs and the state government does not have the means to end it. Though the purpose of this article is to give more powers to the Union government to preserve the unity and integrity of the nation, it has often been misused by the ruling parties at the centre, who used it as a pretext to dissolve state governments ruled by political opponents.[3][4] Thus, it is seen by many as a threat to the federal state system. Since the adoption of the Indian constitution in 1950, the Union government has used this 134 times to dissolve elected state governments by imposing President's rule.[1]
The article was used for the first time in Punjab on 20 June 1951. It was also used in the state of Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) and during the Vimochana Samaram to dismiss the democratically elected Communist state government of Kerala on 31 July 1959. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was common for the Union government to dismiss state governments led by opposition parties.[5] The Indira Gandhi regime and post-emergency Janata Party were noted for this practice. Indira Gandhi's government between 1966 and 1977 is known to have imposed President's rule 39 times in different states.[6] Similarly, the Janata Party which came to power after the emergency issued President's rule in 9 states which were ruled by Congress.[7][8]
The practice was limited only after the Supreme Court established strict guidelines for imposing President's rule in its ruling on the S. R. Bommai v. Union of India case in 1994. This landmark judgement has helped curtail the widespread abuse of Article 356. The judgement established strict guidelines for imposing President's rule. Subsequent pronouncements by the Supreme Court in Jharkhand and other states have further limited the scope for misuse of Article 356. Only since the early 2000s has the number of cases of imposition of President's rule has been drastically reduced.[9]
Article 356 has always been the focal point of a wider debate of the federal structure of government in Indian polity.[10] The Sarkaria Commission Report on Centre-State Relations 1983 has recommended that Article 356 must be used "very sparingly, in extreme cases, as a measure of last resort, when all the other alternatives fail to prevent or rectify a breakdown of Constitutional machinery in the state".[11] B. R. Ambedkar also said that it would be like a "dead letter" (i.e. would be used rarely).[12]
List of instances
| State | Term | Date of imposition | Date of revocation | Duration | Reason(s) to impose the President's rule |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andhra Pradesh | 1 | 18 January 1973 | 10 December 1973 | 327 days | Breakdown of law & order due to Jai Andhra Agitation, in CM P. V. Narasimha Rao's tenure.[13] |
| 2 | 28 February 2014 | 8 June 2014 | 100 days | Political impasse following the resignation of CM Kiran Kumar Reddy and several other congress party legislators from the Government as well as the Party, in protest against Indian Parliament passing Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill to bifurcate united Andhra Pradesh and create a separate Telangana state.[14] President's rule revoked from Telangana areas on 2 June 2014 and bifurcated Andhra Pradesh areas on 8 June 2014.[15] President rule reimposed unlawfully by the President after the two months time limit without taking approval of the Parliament under Article 356.[16][17] | |
| Andhra State | 1 | 15 November 1954 | 28 March 1955 | 133 days | Loss of majority.[18][19]: 127–133 |
| Arunachal Pradesh | 1 | 3 November 1979 | 18 January 1980 | 76 days | Loss of majority following defections in a fluid political environment during Janata party rule at the centre.[20] |
| 2 | 25 January 2016 | 19 February 2016 | 26 days | 21 Congress MLAs joined hands with 11 of the BJP and two Independents, making the current government a minority government.[21] Supreme Court declared the imposition of president rule as ultra vires and reinstated the dismissed Congress led government in the state. In a landmark judgement, it found fault with the unconstitutional role played by the Governor by interfering in the activities of legislatures and speaker of the Vidhan Shaba[22] | |
| Assam | 1 | 12 December 1979 | 6 December 1980 | 360 days | 'Assam Agitation' against illegal foreign nationals staying in Assam started to take roots under the leadership of the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU). The violence fuelled by United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) resulted in breakdown of law and order.[23][24] |
| 2 | 30 June 1981 | 13 January 1982 | 197 days | Congress (I) government led by Anwara Taimur representing immigrant minorities collapsed following intensification of 'Assam Agitation' against illegal foreign national staying in Assam.[25] | |
| 3 | 19 March 1982 | 27 February 1983 | 345 days | Congress (I) government led by Kesab Gogoi representing ethnic Asom people collapsed following continued violence in Assam.[26] | |
| 4 | 28 November 1990 | 30 June 1991 | 214 days | Government dismissed in spite of AGP CM Prafulla Mahanta enjoying majority support in Assembly. The dismissal was triggered apparently by the threat to internal security due to banned organisation ULFA's activities.[27] During the president's rule, Operation Bajrang was launched to flush out ULFA militants.[28] | |
| Bihar | 1 | 29 June 1968 | 26 February 1969 | 242 days | Loss of majority following defections in a fluid political environment.[29]: 116–117 [19]: 300–301 |
| 2 | 4 July 1969 | 16 February 1970 | 227 days | Loss of majority following defections in a fluid political environment due to split in ruling Congress party[29]: 123–125 [19]: 321–326 | |
| 3 | 9 January 1972 | 19 March 1972 | 70 days | Loss of majority following defections in a fluid political environment.[29]: 129–130 | |
| 4 | 30 April 1977 | 24 June 1977 | 55 days | Government dismissed in spite of Jagannath Mishra enjoying majority support in Assembly.[7][8] | |
| 5 | 17 February 1980 | 8 June 1980 | 112 days | Government dismissed in spite of Ram Sundar Das enjoying majority support in Assembly.[30] | |
| 6 | 28 March 1995 | 4 April 1995 | 7 days | President's rule imposed for a brief period of one week to facilitate passage of vote on account (to permit day-to-day government expenses in Bihar) by Parliament while awaiting the results of Assembly elections held during the Chief Ministership of Lalu Prasad.[31] | |
| 7 | 12 February 1999 | 8 March 1999 | 24 days | Breakdown of law and order, killings of 11 Dalits at Narayanpur. The Vajpayee Government, revoked the president's rule within 26 days since the coalition did not have a majority in the Rajya Sabha.[32] | |
| 8 | 7 March 2005 | 24 November 2005 | 262 days | Indecisive outcome of elections. In a landmark judgement, Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of the president's rule without giving the chance to the elected legislatures to form new government is unconstitutional and mala fide act by the president.[33] | |
| Delhi | 1 | 16 February 2014 | 14 February 2015 | 363 days | Arvind Kejriwal resigned as Chief Minister after failing to table the Jan Lokpal Bill in the Delhi Assembly.[34] |
| Goa | 1 | 14 December 1990 | 25 January 1991 | 42 days | C.M. resigned consequent upon his disqualification by High Court – No other Government found viable.[35] |
| 2 | 10 February 1999 | 9 June 1999 | 119 days | Loss of majority and no alternate claimant to form next government.[36] | |
| 3 | 4 March 2005 | 7 June 2005 | 95 days | Government dismissed after controversial confidence vote secured in the Assembly by CM Pratap Sinh Rane.[37][38] | |
| Goa, Daman and Diu | 1 | 3 December 1966 | 5 April 1967 | 123 days | The Union Territory of Goa's Assembly was dissolved to conduct an opinion poll to determine whether Goa should be merged with Maharashtra.[39] |
| 2 | 27 April 1979 | 16 January 1980 | 264 days | Loss of majority following split in the ruling MGP Party.[40] | |
| Gujarat | 1 | 13 May 1971 | 17 March 1972 | 309 days | Loss of majority following vertical split in Congress during 1969 presidential election.[29]: 138–140 |
| 2 | 9 February 1974 | 18 June 1975 | 1 year, 129 days | Chimanbhai Patel led Congress government resigned due to Navnirman Movement Anti-Corruption protests. The protesters forced MLA's resignations, forcing dissolution of assembly.[41] | |
| 3 | 12 March 1976 | 24 December 1976 | 287 days | "Non-Passage" of budget leading to collapse of government.[42] | |
| 4 | 17 February 1980 | 7 June 1980 | 111 days | Government dismissed in spite of Babubhai J Patel enjoying majority support in the Assembly[30] | |
| 5 | 19 September 1996 | 23 October 1996 | 34 days | Government dismissed following a controversial confidence vote. The Assembly was placed in suspended animation, which led to subsequent installation of Vaghela government, supported by Congress.[43] | |
| Haryana | 1 | 21 November 1967 | 21 May 1968 | 182 days | Government dismissed in spite of having a tenuous majority.[19]: 153–155 |
| 2 | 30 April 1977 | 21 June 1977 | 52 days | Government dismissed in spite of B D Gupta enjoying majority support in Assembly.[7][8] | |
| 3 | 6 April 1991 | 23 June 1991 | 78 days | Rebellion in the ruling party.[44] | |
| Himachal Pradesh | 1 | 30 April 1977 | 22 June 1977 | 53 days | Government dismissed in spite of Thakur Ram Lal enjoying majority support in Assembly.[7][8] |
| 2 | 15 December 1992 | 3 December 1993 | 353 days | Government dismissed in the aftermath of the destruction of Babri Masjid-Ram Janmasthan in Uttar Pradesh.[45] | |
| Jammu and Kashmir (State) |
1 | 27 March 1977 | 9 July 1977 | 104 days | Sheikh Abdullah led National Conference government bowed out after being reduced to a minority following withdrawal of support by the Congress Party.[29]: 431–432 |
| 2 | 7 March 1986 | 6 November 1986 | 244 days | Loss of majority.[46] | |
| 3 | 19 January 1990 | 9 October 1996 | 6 years, 264 days | Increased Militancy, Exodus of Kashmiri Hindus & breakdown of law & order[47] | |
| 5 | 10 July 2008 | 5 January 2009 | 179 days | Loss of majority following collapse of coalition. CM Gulam Nabi Azad's decision to transfer land for Amarnath pilgrimage led to PDP pulling out of coalition Govt.[48] | |
| 6 | 9 January 2015 | 1 March 2015 | 51 days | Failure of Government formation after fractured verdict in Assembly elections. BJP & PDP reached an understanding to form an alliance to form Government in J&K.[49] | |
| 7 | 8 January 2016 | 4 April 2016 | 87 days | Death of chief minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed.[50] | |
| 8 | 19 June 2018 | 30 October 2019 | 1 year, 133 days | Resignation of the Chief Minister following loss of coalition partner.[51] On 31 October 2019, Jammu and Kashmir state was split into two union territories, UT of Jammu and Kashmir and UT of Ladakh. | |
| Jammu and Kashmir (Union Territory) |
1 | 31 October 2019 | Present | 4 years, 226 days | Imposed under section 73 of Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (Article 356 does not apply to Union Territories) |
| Jharkhand | 1 | 19 January 2009 | 30 December 2009 | 345 days | Political instability due to CM Shibu Soren's resignation following defeat in Tamar bypolls.[52] |
| 2 | 1 June 2010 | 11 September 2010 | 102 days | Loss of majority.[53] | |
| 3 | 18 January 2013 | 13 July 2013 | 176 days | Loss of majority BJP's ruling coalition partner JMM withdrew its support to the government pushing it into a minority. Chief Minister Arjun Munda resigned and sought dissolution of the state Assembly.[54] | |
| Karnataka | 1 | 27 March 1971 | 20 March 1972 | 359 days | Loss of majority.[19]: 392, 395–396 |
| 2 | 31 December 1977 | 27 February 1978 | 58 days | Government dismissed in spite of Congress CM Devraj Urs enjoying majority support in Assembly.[19]: 221–225 | |
| 3 | 21 April 1989 | 30 November 1989 | 223 days | Loss of majority of CM S. R. Bommai, followed by dissolution of Assembly.[55] On an appeal by S. R. Bommai, in a landmark judgement delivered in 1994, the Indian Supreme Court laid out the procedure to be followed before dissolving an elected assembly. The historic ruling in this case reduced the scope for misuse of Article 356 by future central governments and governors. | |
| 4 | 10 October 1990 | 17 October 1990 | 7 days | Government of Veerendra Patil dismissed by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and state was placed under president's rule with the assembly placed in suspended animation until next chief Minister was elected.[56] | |
| 5 | 9 October 2007 | 12 November 2007 | 34 days | Loss of majority.[57][58] | |
| 6 | 20 November 2007 | 30 May 2008 | 192 days | Loss of majority.[59] | |
| Kerala | 1 | 31 July 1959 | 22 February 1960 | 206 days | Government dismissed in spite of Communist CM EMS Namboodiripad enjoying majority support in Assembly.[60][61] |
| 2 | 10 September 1964 | 6 March 1967 | 2 years, 177 days | Loss of majority followed by indecisive outcome of elections.[29]: 173–174 [19]: 214–215 | |
| 3 | 4 August 1970 | 3 October 1970 | 60 days | Loss of majority.[29]: 194–195 | |
| 4 | 5 December 1979 | 25 January 1980 | 51 days | Loss of majority.[62] | |
| 5 | 21 October 1981 | 28 December 1981 | 68 days | Loss of majority due to withdrawal of support by Congress(S) and Kerala Congress(M).[63][64] | |
| 6 | 17 March 1982 | 24 May 1982 | 68 days | Loss of majority following defection of Lonappan Nambadan.[65][66] | |
| Madhya Pradesh | 1 | 30 April 1977 | 23 June 1977 | 54 days | Government dismissed in spite of Shyama Charan Shukla enjoying majority support in Assembly.[7][8] |
| 2
Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=President's_rule >Text je dostupný pod licencí Creative Commons Uveďte autora – Zachovejte licenci, případně za dalších podmínek. Podrobnosti naleznete na stránce Podmínky užití. čítajte viac o President's_rule
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative
Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších
podmienok. |
