When is the use of President’s Rule allowed?
Q. In which of the following situations is the use of President’s Rule allowed?
1) Mal-administration in the state or allegations of corruption against the ministry or stringent financial exigencies of the state.
2) Hung Assembly.
3) Constitutional direction of the Central government is disregarded by the state government.- Published on 27 Feb 17a. 1 and 2
b. Only 2
c. 2 and 3
d. All of the above
ANSWER: 2 and 3
- Based on the report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-state Relations (1988), the Supreme Court in Bommai case (1994) gave the situations where the exercise of power under Article 356 could be proper or improper.
Imposition of President’s Rule in a state would be proper in the following situation -
a. Where after general elections to the assembly, no party secures a majority,that is,‘Hung Assembly’.
b. Where the party having a majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry and the governor cannot find a coalition ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
c. Where a ministry resigns after its defeat in the assembly and no other party is willing or able to form a ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
d. Where a constitutional direction of the Central government is disregarded by the state government.
e. Internal subversion where, for example,a government is deliberately acting against the Constitution and the law or is fomenting a violent revolt.
f. Physical breakdown where the government will fully refuses to discharge its constitutional obligations endangering the security of the state.
The imposition of President’s Rule in a state would be improper under the following situations -
a. Where a ministry resigns or is dismissed on losing majority support in the assembly and the governor recommends imposition of President’s Rule without probing the possibility of forming an alternative ministry.
b. Where the governor makes his own assessment of the support of a ministry in the assembly and recommends imposition of President’s Rule without allowing the ministry to prove its majority on the floor of the Assembly.
c. Where the ruling party enjoying majority support in the assembly has suffered a massive defeat in the general elections to the Lok Sabha such as in 1977 and 1980.
d. Internal disturbances not amounting to internal subversion or physical breakdown.
e. Mal-administration in the state or allegations of corruption against the ministry or stringent financial exigencies of the state.
f. Where the state government is not given prior warning to rectify itself except in case of extreme urgency leading to disastrous consequences.
g. Where the power is used to sort out intra-party problems of the ruling party, or for a purpose extraneous or irrelevant to the one for which it has been conferred by the Constitution.
