In political circles, the debate regarding imposition of President’s Rule in States such as Maharashtra has been doing the rounds now.

The advocates of President’s rule have cited inefficiency by the State administrations in handling the Covid pandemic as a reason for imposition of President’s rule.

The question, therefore, arises as to under what circumstances can President’s rule be imposed and whether inefficiency in handling the pandemic is reason enough to impose it.

The Constitution of India contains provisions regarding takeover of control of a State by the Union, often referred to as ‘President Rule’, under Article 356.

On the satisfaction of the President, pursuant to receipt of the report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the President may assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State.

The above phrase “the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution” has been couched in general and wide terms under Article 356.

It expressly provides that “where any State has failed to comply with, or give effect to, any directions given in the exercise of the executive power of the Union under any of the provisions of this Constitution, it shall be lawful for the President to hold that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution”.

It is to be noted that every breach of Constitutional provision, irrespective of the significance of such a breach, or every action not in accordance with law does not amount to failure of the Constitutional machinery.

Several such breaches, however, may qualify as a failure of the Constitutional machinery.

Article 256 casts an obligation upon the States to so exercise their executive power as to ensure compliance with the laws made by Parliament and the existing laws.

It further provides that it is open to the Union to issue directions in exercise of its executive power to ensure that the States exercise their executive power in the aforesaid manner.

Article 257 goes further and states that the executive power of the State shall be so exercised as not to impede or prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union and that the executive power of the Union shall extend to give any appropriate directions to ensure the same.

It is noteworthy that the phrase “failure of constitutional machinery” has not been defined in the Constitution.

The reason for not defining it is simple; it is not capable of any precise definition.

Hence, there have been deliberations regarding the true import of this phrase, both in courts of law and outside courts.

The difficulty in this regard was realised by the Sarkaria Commission in its report wherein it postulated that a ‘failure of constitutional machinery’ may occur in a number of ways.

Factors which contribute to such a situation are diverse. It is, therefore, difficult to provide an exhaustive catalogue of all situations which would fall within the sweep of the phrase.

However, the Sarkaria Commission categorised certain situations as failure of constitutional machinery, as follows: 1. Political Crisis, 2. Internal Subversion, 3. Physical Breakdown, 4. Non-compliance with the Union's Direction and 5. Reorganisation of States.

The National Commission to review the working of the Constitution, in its Consultation Paper on Article 356, has sought to clarify the legal position in this regard.

Under the head of ‘Physical Breakdown’ the Commission highlighted instances of internal disturbance leading to the paralysis of the State administration, and natural calamities.

One such instance leading to failure of constitutional machinery is where a natural calamity such as an earthquake, cyclone, epidemic, flood, etc. completely paralyses the administration and endangers the security of the State and the State government is unwilling or unable to exercise its governmental power to deal with the situation.

Thus, if public disorder of a significant magnitude endangers the security of the State, it is the duty of the State government to inform the Centre of such development and if it fails to do so, it may again invite article 356.

Public disorder is different from ordinary problems relating to law and order. In terms of gravity and magnitude, it is intended to connote a far serious situation.

In such a situation, if it paralyses the State administration and the government fails to deal with it, it will amount to the abdication of governmental power and such abdication can be assessed as a physical breakdown.

For the purpose of invoking Article 356, there should be adequate material placed on record by the Governor for the satisfaction of the President, that there is a failure of constitutional machinery in the State.

Let us now examine the factors which could be relevant in this regard.

It is imperative to state that no one single factor would be sufficient to reach the conclusion that there is a failure of Constitutional machinery.

However, if the President, on a conspectus of all the factors combined, comes to such a conclusion, then there is no reason why his subjective satisfaction will be overturned by the courts.

In States such as Maharashtra and West Bengal, there are constant conflicts between the Governor and the State government.

In West Bengal, several allegations have been made regarding fudging of numbers of cases and fatalities. Law and order problems are also rampant.

In Maharashtra, the worst-hit State, the constantly rising Covid patient numbers, law and order problems, lack of proper medical infrastructure, rising cases amongst the front line workers, conflict between the Centre and State, apathy of migrant labourers, recent conflicts between the Governor and government on several issues such as postponement of exams, et cetera. are problems which cannot be overlooked.

All these problems combined would be very relevant if any decision regarding imposition of President’s rule is to be made.

The Opposition has now launched an attack on the government and claimed that the government has failed to control the Covid-19 crisis.

If one is to appreciate the jurisprudence surrounding the use of Article 356, it would be noted that post the S. R. Bommai case (1994) 3 SCC 1, it is now clear that this provision cannot be used purely as a political tool.

However, at the same time, it is also pertinent to note that the judiciary does not, and is not expected to embark upon a very detailed analysis of the substantive reasons which have been fundamental in the exercise of discretion by the President.

The judiciary would, nevertheless, consider the material on record before the President and satisfy itself as to the correctness of the exercise of “subjective satisfaction.”

The standard of scrutiny by the courts is vital in analysing whether the imposition of President’s rule will be valid or not.

Nonetheless, this is a matter which ultimately falls within the ambit of the ‘subjective satisfaction’ of the President and no strict scrutiny of such satisfaction can be carried out by the courts.

In the given circumstances, considering the material on record regarding the circumstances prevalent in the State of Maharashtra, if the Governor so reports, and if the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen which calls for invocation of powers under Article 356, President’s rule may be imposed in the State.

Chitrangada Singh and Sudhanva Bedekar

Get Swarajya in your inbox.