When can President’s Rule be imposed? | Explained

The story so far:

Four days after Manipur Chief Minister N. Biren Singh resigned, the State was put under President’s Rule on February 13. Though the ruling BJP still holds a majority in the Manipur Assembly, the party was unable to find a consensus Chief Minister candidate. The State has also been wracked by ethnic violence between the Meiteis and Kuki-Zo communities since May 2023, and Mr. Singh faced criticism for his handling of the conflict from many sides, including from within his own party. This is the 11th time that President’s Rule has been imposed in Manipur, the highest in any State.

Editorial: Peace imperatives: On President’s Rule in Manipur 

What is President’s Rule?

President’s Rule is a provision under Article 356 to be imposed in case of the failure of the constitutional machinery in a State. In such situations, based on a report by the State’s Governor or other inputs, the President can issue a Proclamation taking over the functions of the State’s government and Governor — effectively transferring them to the Union government — and transferring the powers of the State Assembly to Parliament. The President cannot, however, assume any of the powers vested in a High Court. The President’s proclamation must be laid before Parliament, and will expire in two months unless both Houses ratify it. It may be renewed by Parliament every six months, for a maximum period of three years. After the first year, renewal can take place under certain conditions, of an Emergency being declared in the country or the State, or the Election Commission declaring that State elections cannot be held.

Article 356 does not list the various specific circumstances under which President’s Rule can be imposed, leaving it to the judgment of the President (and the Union Council of Ministers advising her) to satisfy herself that “a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the Provisions of this Constitution”. A comprehensive assessment of President’s Rule published by the Lok Sabha Secretariat in 2016 listed situations in which it has been imposed, apart from militancy and law and order: defections by MLAs, break-up of coalitions, passing of no-confidence motions, resignations of Chief Ministers, absence of legislatures in newly formed States, and public agitations leading to instability. The Supreme Court’s judgment in the 1994 S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case also listed the circumstances in which President’s Rule could and could not be imposed, though it made it clear this was not exhaustive.

What are some previous instances of the imposition of President’s Rule?

President’s Rule has been imposed 135 times, in 35 States and Union Territories, including some that no longer exist. The first instance was in June 1951, in Punjab, when the State’s Chief Minister Gopi Chand Bhargava resigned due to internal differences in the Congress party. In all, Punjab has been under Central control for well over a decade largely due to terrorist and separatist activities leading to unstable law and order conditions. The only State which has spent more time under Central control is J&K, which has had President’s Rule imposed for almost 15 years (including in the Union Territory of J&K), with the longest continuous stints of more than six years each from 1990 to 1996 and from 2019 to 2024. After Manipur, where it has now been imposed for the 11th time, the most frequent imposition of President’s Rule has been 10 times in Uttar Pradesh.

Though it is more common for President’s Rule to be imposed in a State where the ruling party is opposed to the one at the Centre, There have also been several instances of Article 356 being applied in cases where the same party is in power at both Centre and State, including in Andhra Pradesh in 1973, Assam in 1981, Gujarat in 1974, Karnataka in 1990, and now in Manipur in 2025.

In 1977, the newly elected Morarji Desai government imposed President’s Rule on nine Congress-ruled States at one go, claiming that they no longer held the confidence of the electorate which had voted out the Congress at the Centre. When Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980, she returned the favour, imposing President’s Rule in nine States for the same reason. The Supreme Court at the time refused to interfere in the matter.

Why has it become less frequent?

A few decades later, the Bommai judgment marked a shift in the court’s stance. The nine-judge Bench said that courts could review the President’s proclamation by “examining whether it was issued on the basis of any material at all or whether the material was relevant or whether the proclamation was issued in the mala fide exercise of the power,” former Attorney-General late Soli Sorabjee said in a critique of the 1994 judgment. “This means the proclamation can be struck down if found to be unconstitutional. This is a clear deterrence to the government,” said P.D.T. Acharya, a former Lok Sabha Secretary General.

Between 1950 and 1994, President’s Rule was imposed 100 times, an average of 2.5 times a year. In the three decades since, it has been imposed 30 times or about once a year. In fact, the imposition in Manipur is the first since Puducherry in February 2021, almost four years ago. Since the Narendra Modi-led NDA government came to power in 2014, President’s Rule has been imposed 11 times including four times in J&K. Of these, the courts have struck down the proclamation twice, in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand.

What does it mean to keep a legislature in suspended animation?

Though Manipur has been placed under President’s Rule, its Assembly has not been dissolved. Instead, it has been kept under suspended animation. In 111 cases of President’s Rule till 2015, the State’s Legislative Assembly had been dissolved simultaneously with the proclamation 53 times, according to the Lok Sabha Secretariat’s report. In the remaining instances, the legislature has been placed in suspended animation.

Though Manipur has been placed under President’s Rule, its Assembly has not been dissolved. Instead, it has been kept under suspended animation. When the Assembly is placed under suspended animation, it can be revived whenever it becomes possible to form a popular government after President’s Rule is revoked.

In the Bommai case “one view the court took was that the proclamation only temporarily suspended the constitutional function of the Legislative Assembly during its existence and the moment the proclamation was revoked, the constitutional suspension would end and the legislature would spring back to life,” says constitutional lawyer Abishek Jebaraj. “The Supreme Court also cautioned that granting unfettered powers of dissolution to the President under an Article 356 proclamation would both be fraught with danger and add to the Constitution a measure its founders never intended.”

Mr. Acharya, however, felt that “suspended animation” — which is never mentioned as such in the Constitution — has no constitutional sanction. “If Parliament takes over all its powers, what is the point of keeping an Assembly alive?” he asked. “It is unconstitutional.”