The Constitution of India
Article 356
Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States
(1) 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 President may by Proclamation —
(a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State;
(b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;
(c) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to any body or authority in the State:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorise the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to High Courts.
(2) Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation.
(3) Every Proclamation under this article shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall, except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament:
Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People.
(4) A Proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of issue of the Proclamation:
Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a Proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of six months from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to operate, but no such Proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than three years:
Provided further that if the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during any such period of six months and a resolution approving the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People during the said period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the continuance in force of the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People:
Provided also that in the case of the Proclamation issued under clause (1) on the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect to the State of Punjab, the reference in the first proviso to this clause to “three years” shall be construed as a reference to five years.
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (4), a resolution with respect to the continuance in force of a Proclamation approved under clause (3) for any period beyond the expiration of one year from the date of issue of such Proclamation shall not be passed by either House of Parliament unless —
(a) a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, in the whole of India or, as the case may be, in the whole or any part of the State, at the time of the passing of such resolution, and
(b) the Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of the Proclamation approved under clause (3) during the period specified in such resolution is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned:
Provided that nothing in this clause shall apply to the Proclamation issued under clause (1) on the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect to the State of Punjab.
Why this exists
Article 356 was modeled on similar 'failure of constitutional machinery' provisions the framers borrowed from the Government of India Act, 1935 (which allowed the Governor-General to take over a province). Dr. B.R. Ambedkar defended it in the Constituent Assembly as a rarely-used emergency safeguard, hoping it would become a 'dead letter.' It was designed to let the Union step in if a State government genuinely could not function constitutionally — for instance, after a hung assembly, complete breakdown of law and order, or defection crises — while building in checks (parliamentary approval, time limits) to prevent misuse against elected State governments for political reasons.
How courts read it
For decades after independence, Article 356 was invoked frequently and often controversially, sometimes to dismiss opposition-ruled State governments on flimsy grounds. The landmark case S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) transformed its interpretation: the Supreme Court held that the President's satisfaction under Article 356 is not immune from judicial review, that the floor of the Assembly (not the Governor's subjective opinion) is the proper test of majority, and that if the Proclamation is found unconstitutional courts can restore the dismissed government. Bommai also held that secularism and federalism are part of the basic structure, relevant to assessing when Article 356 can validly be used. This judgment significantly curbed arbitrary invocations of the Article in later decades.
Common misconceptions
- Myth: The President can use Article 356 purely on personal or political judgment, with no checks.
Fact: Since S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), courts can review whether the President's 'satisfaction' was based on genuine, relevant material, and can strike down or reverse a wrongful Proclamation. - Myth: Article 356 lets the Centre take over the State's courts too.
Fact: The proviso to clause (1) explicitly bars the President from assuming High Court powers or suspending constitutional provisions relating to High Courts. - Myth: Once imposed, President's Rule can continue indefinitely if Parliament keeps approving it.
Fact: Clause (4) caps total duration at three years (five years only for the specific 1987 Punjab case), and clause (5) adds strict extra conditions (Emergency in force plus Election Commission certification) for any extension beyond one year.