President Rule or State Emergency

Art 355 justifies it by saying that the centre is obliged to ensure that the government of the state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Indian constitution. In that circumstance, proclamation by president is called proclamation due to the failure of constitutional machinery in state.

By that proclamation:

The president may assume to himself all or any of the powers vested in the Governor or exercised by him to anybody or authority in the state.
The president may declare that the powers of the legislature of the state shall be exercised by or under the authority of parliament.
The president may make such consequential provisions as may appear to him to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the object of proclamation.

The president cannot assume to himself any of the powers vested in high court or suspend the operation of any provisions of the constitution relating to the high court.

A State Emergency can be imposed via the following:

By Article 356– If that state failed to run constitutionally, i.e. constitutional machinery has failed. When a state emergency is imposed under this provision, the state is said to be under “President’s rule.
By Article 365– If that state is not working according to the direction of the Union Government issued per the provisions of the constitution.

The Sarkaria Commission held that presidents have unconstitutionally misused the provision of Article 356 many times for achieving political motives, by dismissing the state governments although there was no constitutional break down in the states.

Effect of State Emergency

Some of the consequences of the Constitutional Emergency are:

The State Assembly is dissolved or suspended.
The Parliament takes the hold of the entire State’s budget and makes laws regarding the State List.
The President can assume to himself all or any of the functions of the State Government or he may vest all or any of those functions with the Governor or any other executive authority.
The President can make any other incidental or consequential provision necessary to give effect to the object of proclamation

Judicial Guidelines for imposing Presidents Rule:

In S.R. Bommai V. Union of India,
Facts:

On Dec 15, 1992 president rule was imposed in three BJP ruled-states Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan and assemblies were dissolved on the ground that these states were not implementing sincerely the ban imposed by the centre on religious organisation.
The main grounds on which the government had been dismissed were that the chief ministers of these states had connections with an organisation which had been banned, and secondly, that these governments had encouraged the Kar Sevaks to go to Ayodhya. Thus, the premise was mere suspicion that they might refuse to enforce the ban. There were no proof that they were not following the directions of the centre.

Held:

The dismissal of the governments in Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan in the wake of the Ayodhya incident of Dec 6, 1992 was valid and imposition of the presidents rule in these states was constitutional.
Secularism is a basic feature of the constitution and any state government which acts against that ideal can be dismissed by the president.
It was held that in matters of religion the state has no place. No party can simultaneously be a non-secular party as well as political party.

Judicial review of the Presidential Rule

Some important points regarding the Judicial review of the President rule are given below.

The decision of the President to impose the judicial review comes under the jurisdiction of Judicial Review.
The reason behind imposing the president rule must be practical and based on facts.
The central government is also responsible for presenting the correct argument about imposing the president rule.
If the court found that the decision of government unconstitutional, then he can restore the dissolved state assembly.
The power of President Rule is a very exclusive power of the central government; that’s why the government must use it wisely.

Conditions to Implement President Rule

Whenever a single party doesn’t get the majority in the house, i.e. in case of a hung assembly.

When the party in majority denies forming the government.
When the Council of minister resigns, and no party comes forward to form the government.
If state government disobeys any executive order of the central government.
When a state government starts working against the constitution, which leads to an internal revolt.
If the government purposefully denies following its duty towards the citizen.

Difference between National Emergency and President Rule in India

National Emergency is imposed when the integrity of the country is in danger, for example, during the war, external attack, internal revolt. But the President rule is imposed when the constitutional provision fails to form a government.
An Emergency can be implemented in the entire country or any state. But PR can be implemented on a state only.
The Provision of National Emergency is given in article 352 to 355, and that of PR is in article 356.
During Emergency, state government continue to work as per the constitutional provisions, but parliament gets an extra power to make laws from the state list. During president Rule the state government is dismissed and governor of the state rule as per the directions of the President.
The Government can extend the period of emergency up to an infinite number of times. But they can’t extend the period of national emergency for more than three years—President Rule in India.
The president rule doesn’t alter the fundamental rights of citizens, whereas the National emergency dismissed the article 19 of Fundamental rights completely.