Revision summary
Article 356 use declined after the mid-1990s for legal and political reasons together. S.R. Bommai (1994) made the proclamation justiciable and centred the floor test. The 44th Amendment had already limited duration and required parliamentary approval. Sarkaria and Punchhi recommended last-resort use; courts enforced that idea. Coalition Union governments and regional parties raised the political price of dismissal. The Article remains; casual partisan use became harder.
Model answer
Introduction
Article 356 allows the President to assume a State’s government when the constitutional machinery has failed. After the mid-1990s its use fell because the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai (1994) legalised limits, and because coalition and later competitive federal politics raised the political cost of dismissal.
Body
The legal factors
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) held that a Presidential proclamation under Article 356 is justiciable; the Union must have relevant material, and the Court can strike down a mala fide or irrelevant proclamation.
- Bommai made the floor test the primary proof of majority; the Governor’s report cannot replace a vote in the Assembly when the House can meet.
- Secularism was held to be a basic feature, so a State government that undermines it can still invite Article 356, but ordinary political instability cannot.
- The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, had already required the proclamation to be laid before Parliament, limited the first period, and barred dissolution of the Assembly until Parliament approves; Bommai enforced the spirit of those curbs.
- Later cases — Rameshwar Prasad (Bihar, 2006) and the Arunachal and Uttarakhand episodes — showed that courts will restore a government when the Governor or the Union rushes dissolution or floor arithmetic.
- Sarkaria Commission (1988) and later the Punchhi Commission on Centre–State relations had recommended rare, last-resort use; Bommai turned that advice into judicial rule.
The political factors
- Hung verdicts and coalition Union governments from 1989 through the 1990s made every State party a potential partner; dismissing a State government risked losing parliamentary support in New Delhi.
- The rise of strong regional parties meant that Article 356 was read as an attack on a whole linguistic or regional electorate, not only on a Chief Minister.
- Television, a louder Rajya Sabha, and Inter-State Council politics after the 1990s made a midnight dismissal nationally expensive.
- Even majority Union governments after 2014 still face judicial review, Election Commission schedules, and the need for State allies on GST and other federal files, so the old single-party habit of routine President’s Rule is harder to revive.
- Hung Assemblies now more often produce floor tests, Governor’s invitations, and Speaker fights rather than an immediate Article 356, which is a political substitute, not always a cleaner one.
Residual use
- Article 356 still appears in genuine breakdown, hung Houses after large defections, or law-and-order collapse.
- The reduction is therefore frequency and casual use, not repeal of the Article.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD B[SR Bommai 1994] --> J[Judicial review floor test] F[44th Amendment] --> P[Parliamentary approval] C[Coalition and regional parties] --> K[High political cost] J --> R[Rarer Article 356] P --> R K --> R
Conclusion
Legal limits after Bommai — justiciability, relevant material, and the floor test — made casual Article 356 legally dangerous. Coalition federalism and strong regional parties made it politically expensive. Together they explain the fall in frequency since the mid-1990s.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Discuss the contribution of civil society groups for women's effective and meaningful participation and representation in state legislatures in India.
Next question in the 2023 paper (Q14). View answer →
-
Did Bommai abolish Article 356?
No. It subjected the proclamation to judicial review and to the floor test. The Union can still use the Article on relevant material.
-
Why did coalitions matter?
A Union that needs regional parties in the Lok Sabha cannot dismiss those parties’ State governments without losing its own majority politics.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2024 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
Examine the need for electoral reforms as suggested by various committees, with particular reference to "one nation - one election" principle. -
2024 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Right to privacy is intrinsic to life and personal liberty and is inherently protected under Article 21 of the constitution. Explain. In this reference discuss the law relating to D.N.A. testing of child in the womb to establish its paternity. -
2023 · Q1 · GS II · 10 marks
"Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy". Comment. -
2023 · Q11 · GS II · 15 marks
" The Construction of India is a living instrument with capabilities of enormous dynamism. It is a constitution made for a progressive society". Illustrate with special reference to the expanding horizons of the right to life and personal liberty. -
2023 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Explain the constitutional perspectives of Gender Justice with the help of relevant Constitutional Provisions and case laws. -
2022 · Q4 · GS II · 10 marks
Discuss the role of the Vice -Presidents of India as the chairman of the Rajyasabha. -
2022 · Q12 · GS II · 15 marks
Discuss the essential conditions for exercise of the legislative powers by ne Governor. Discuss the legality of re-promulgation of ordinances by the Governor without placing them before the Legislature. -
2022 · Q14 · GS II · 15 marks
Critically examine the procedures through which the Presidents of India and France are elected.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2023 · GS II · 10 marks
"Constitutionally guaranteed judicial independence is a prerequisite of democracy". Comment.
Indian Constitution
Democracy needs courts that can enforce the Constitution against the elected majority. Articles 50, 121, 124, 211 and 217, charged salaries, and a hard removal process are the main guarantees. The 99th Amendment and the NJAC were struck down in 2015 as a threat to independence of appointments. Independence is a prerequisite; opacity of the collegium is a separate reform problem, not a reason to remove the guarantee.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2023 · GS II · 10 marks
Who are entitled to receive free legal aid? Assess the role of the National Legal Services Authority(NALSA) in rendering free legal aid in India.
Governance and Policy
Article 39A and the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, create the right to free legal aid. Section 12 names SC/ST persons, women, children, persons in custody, workmen, persons with disability, disaster victims, and the income-poor. NALSA heads the statutory system of State authorities, court committees, clinics and Lok Adalats. The system is wide in design and still thin in quality of trial representation. Assessment therefore credits outreach and asks for better fees, first-hearing counsel, and published coverage data.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2023 · GS II · 10 marks
"The states in India seem reluctant to empower urban local bodies both functionally as well as financially." Comment.
Governance and Policy
The 74th Amendment and the Twelfth Schedule create municipalities but leave devolution to State law. Parastatals and State-appointed commissioners keep functions out of the elected council. Property tax is constrained; GST ended octroi and sent compensation to States, not cities. Late State Finance Commissions and approval for borrowing keep cities fiscally dependent. The statement is correct: functional and financial empowerment is still a State choice.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.