Article 356 is inspired by sections 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided that if a Governor of a province was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the government of the province cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the said Act, he could assume to himself all or any of the powers of the government and discharge those functions in his discretion.The Governor, however, could not encroach upon the powers of the high court

1. Article 356 is inspired by sections 93 of the
Government of India Act, 1935,
 which provided that if a Governor of a province
was satisfied that a situation had arisen in which
the government of the province cannot be carried
on in accordance with the provisions of the
said Act, he could assume to himself all or any of
the powers of the government and discharge
those functions in his discretion.
 The Governor, however, could not encroach
upon the powers of the high court

2.  356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional
machinery in State
1. If the President, on receipt of report from the
Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a
situation has arisen in which the government of the
State cannot be carried on in accordance with he
provisions of this Constitution, the President may be
Proclamation
a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the
Government of the State and all or any of the
powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or
any body or authority in the State other than the
Legislature of the State;
b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the
State shall be exercisable by or under the authority
of Parliament;

3. c) President to assume to himself any of the
powers vested in or exercisable by a High
Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the
operation of any provision of this Constitution
relating to High Courts.
2. Any such Proclamation may be revoked or
varied by a subsequent Proclamation.
3. Every Proclamation issued under this article
except where it is a Proclamation revoking a
previous Proclamation, 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.

4. 4. A Proclamation so approved shall,
unless revoked, cease to operate on the
expiration of a period of six months from
the date of issue of the Proclamation:
Provided that if and so often as a
resolution approving the continuance in
force of such a Proclamation is passed
by both Houses of Parliament,

5.  State of Rajasthan v. Union of India AIR
1977,A seven member constitution bench of
the supreme court by an unanimous
judgment rejected the petitioners petition and
upheld the centre action of dissolving
assemblies under Art. 356 as constitutionally
valid. The court held that the satisfaction of
the president cannot be question in any court.
 The court observed that if the satisfaction is
mala fide or is based on wholly extraneous
and irrelevant grounds the court would have
jurisdiction to examine it because in that case
there would be no satisfaction of the
president.

6.  S.R.Bommai vs. Union of India
 Kuldeep Singh
 B.Sawant
 Katikithala Ramaswamy
 C.Agarwal
 Yogeshwar Dayal
 P.Jeevan Reddy
 R.Pandian
 M.Ahmadi
 S.Verma

7.  Introduction:
 This case relates to State emergency u/art 356. State emergency is
incomplete without this case being discussed. The major part of this
case is about the Centre State relation.
 Facts of the case:
 The situation in Karnataka in 1989 April was clogged and led to state
emergency u/art 356(1). This proclamation was thereafter confirmed by
the Parliament.
 The situation which led to state emergency was that S.R.Bommai a
personal of Janta Party formed the government in 1988, but
subsequently joined the Lok Dal forming a collision government as
Janta Dal.
 But soon there were bifurcations amongst the party members leading
to fall of the Government.
 Therefore the President had to proclaim emergency.
 This proclamation was challenged through Writ Petition but the High
Court dismissed the Petition. Hence appeal to Supreme Court.

8.  Issues:
 Whether President Proclamation u/art
356 is justified?
 Whether the President has unrestricted
power to proclaim emergency?
 Whether the proclamation can be
challenged even after approved by both
the houses of Parliament?

9.  Judgement:
 The Proclamation of emergency u/art 356 is
subject to Judicial Review. The relevancy and
the need of such proclamation shall be struck
down by the concerned court if found
malafide.
 The Power of President under 356 is subject
to restrictions. The opinion is formed is based
on the report of the Governor and not sole
satisfaction.
 The Supreme Court can struck down the
proclamation even if both the houses of
Parliament passes the same on Malafide
grounds.

10.  Sarkaria’s Commission Report
The factors on which judicial review can be carried on differ
from one case to another and therefore, no rules as such can
be stuck on it. In this aspect, the Court heavily relied on the
Sarkaria Commission Report, 1987. The cases in which the
application of Art 356 would be held good i.e., the justifiability
of President’s Rule is maintainable when there is failure of
Constitutional Machinery in certain instances. The instances
are broadly classified into four heads, which are as follows
a) Political crises.
b) Internal subversion.
c) Physical breakdown.
d) Non-compliance with constitutional directions of the
Union Executive.
It is not claimed that this categorization is perfect; rather it
helps to determine whether or not, in a given situation it will
be proper to invoke this last-resort power under Art 356.

11.  Court has laid down following guide lines :-
 Presidential proclamation dissolving a state
legislative assembly is subject to judicial review.
 If a state government works against secularism
,president rule can be imposed
 No wholesale dismissal of opposition ruled
states government when a new political party
assumes power at the centre.
 If president rule is imposed only on political
considerations the court can even restore the
assembly

12.  Imposition of presidents rule and dissolution
of state assembly cannot be done together.
 State assembly can be dissolved only after
parliament approves central rule.
 The supreme court and high court can
compel the union government to disclose
material on whose basis president rule is
imposed on state.
 The power of president under art.356 is a
constitutional power, it is not absolute power.
The existence of material is a pre-condition
to form the satisfaction to impose the
president’s rule.

13.  In rameshwar prasad v. union of india
2006 the court held that the presidential
proclamation dissolving state assembly
eas unconstitutional and based on
extraneous and irrelevant grounds.
 The court said that the governor report
contained fanciful assumption which could
be destructive to democracy the drastic
and extreme action under art.356 cannot
be justified on mere personal opinion of
the governor.

14. RECENT CASES OF ARTICLE 356
 President’s Rule was in force in Delhi with the
Assembly in suspended animation from
February 14, 2014, to February 11, 2015. This
was after Arvind Kejriwal resigned as CM after
his move to introduce the Jan Lokpal Bill fell
through in the Assembly
 Imposed in Maharashtra from September 28,
2014, to October 31, 2014, after Prithviraj
Chavan resigned following the break-up of the
15-year-old Congress-NCP alliance in the state.

15.  In Andhra Pradesh from February 28, 2014, to
June 8, 2014, due to a political crisis caused by
the resignation of CM N Kiran Kumar Reddy and
other Congress legislators on February 19,
protesting against the Andhra Pradesh
Reorganisation Bill that bifurcated the state and
created a separate state of Telangana.
 In Jharkhand from January 18, 2013, to July 12,
2013, as the Arjun Munda-led BJP government
was reduced to a minority after the Jharkhand
Mukti Morcha withdrew support. Munda
resigned and sought dissolution of the state
Assembly.

16.  President’s Rule in Arunachal Pradesh under
Article 356
 The decision has come under the scanner of the Supreme
Court which has sought the report of Governor Jyoti
Prasad Rajkhowa recommending central rule in the state.
While seeking the report, the court described imposition of
President’s rule in the north-eastern state as “too serious
a matter”.
 After hearing Congress’ petition the apex court issued
notices to the Centre seeking its response by Friday
before fixing coming Monday as the day of next hearing.
 The Congress will file fresh petition challenging the
President’s Rule.
 This hearing was on a related constitutional matter
emanating due to conflict between the stance of the state
Governor on the one side and Assembly Speaker and
chief minister on the other.