Question

Regarding the imposition of President's Rule, consider the following:

Assertion (A): The President can impose President's Rule in a state even without a report from the Governor.
Reason (R): The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 affirmed that the satisfaction of the President in invoking Article 356 is not subject to judicial review.

Which of the above are true?

• A. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
• B. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
• C. A is true, but R is false
• D. A is false, but R is true

Answer 1

Answer:

C. A is true, but R is false

Understanding President's Rule (Article 356)

• President's Rule, also known as 'State Emergency' or 'Constitutional Emergency', is dealt with under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. It allows the President to take over the administration of a state if its constitutional machinery breaks down.
• The term 'President's Rule' is often used interchangeably with 'State Emergency' because it signifies the direct rule of the Union government over a state.

Assertion (A): The President can impose President's Rule in a state even without a report from the Governor.

• This assertion is true. Article 356(1) states: "If the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of a State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution..."
• The phrase "or otherwise" signifies that the President can act on information received from sources other than the Governor's report, such as media reports, public grievances, or independent assessment.
• This provision highlights the President's ultimate authority in determining a constitutional breakdown, not solely relying on the Governor.

Reason (R): The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 affirmed that the satisfaction of the President in invoking Article 356 is not subject to judicial review.

• This reason is false. The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 actually reversed the provision made by the 38th Amendment Act of 1975.
• The 38th Amendment Act of 1975 made the satisfaction of the President in invoking Article 356 final and conclusive and beyond judicial review. This was seen as a measure to strengthen the executive's power during the Emergency era.
• However, the 44th Amendment Act of 1978 restored the original position and clarified that the President's satisfaction is not beyond judicial review. This amendment aimed to curb potential misuse of emergency powers and restore democratic checks and balances.
• The landmark S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case (1994) significantly reinforced the judicial review of President's Rule. The Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of President's Rule is subject to judicial review and the Court can examine the material on which the President's satisfaction is based.
• The Bommai judgment laid down strict guidelines to prevent the arbitrary use of Article 356, emphasizing that it should be invoked only as a 'last resort'. It also stated that the burden of proving that the state government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution lies with the Union.