President’s Rule In Manipur

In simplest terms, under the provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India, the President's Rule is a statute through which the central government takes over the direct administration of a state. Recently, the state of Manipur has been in the news since President’s rule was imposed here. This government provision shall come into effect when, by the report of the Governor or by reliable information, the President is satisfied that the government of a state cannot function according to the provisions of the Constitution.

Meaning Of President’s Rule

According to Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, if the President, on the report of the Governor or other information, feels that a state government cannot operate as per the constitutional provisions, he is empowered to implement the President's Rule in the state.

During President's Rule:

• The Governor assumes the executive powers on behalf of the President.

• The State Legislative Assembly can be suspended or dissolved.

• The Parliament assumes the legislative duties of the state.

• The Governor governs the state aided by advisors or the Union government.

• However, the powers of the High Court remain unaffected. 

Situation In Manipur Leading To Imposition Of President Rule

The imposition of the President's Rule in Manipur is directly attributable to long-drawn-out bouts of ethnic violence which have more than greatly set the state back. The conflict, mostly between the Meiteis and the Kuki Zo, has caused mass disruptions and deaths, along with the collapse of law and order. This steady unrest then contributed to a situation where the Central Government actively questioned the ability of the state government to carry out its constitutional responsibilities effectively.

Impact of Political Turmoil

Stability was further undercut by political turmoil. A power vacuum and consequent constitutional crisis developed after N. Biren Singh resigned as Chief Minister, following threats from some quarters to move a no-confidence motion against him. This political instability, aggravated by violence from either side, led to the conclusion by the Central Government that the state government was unable to fulfill its constitutional obligations. The Governor of the state reported that the machinery of administration had broken down due to a variety of preemptive actions that came to the attention of the center, and this gave weight to the decision.

Invokation Of Article 365

In the end, the decision to impose the President's Rule came from the finding that the state government was no longer able to govern effectively. Such an action, under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, thus envisaged restoration of normalcy, the safety of citizens, and a conducive environment for settling the ethnic strife. The central administration assumed direct control over the government, with the objective of restoring law and order, as well as expediting political dialogue.

Process Of Imposing President’s Rule In Manipur

To impose the President’s rule, the following steps need to be taken:

Step 1: Report By The Governor

The process starts with the Governor of the state submitting a report to the President of India. The Governor briefs the President that the state government cannot function according to the Constitution.

Step 2: Approval Of The President

The President reviews the report given by the Governor. On review of the report, if satisfied, the President issues a proclamation under Article 356.

Step 3: Approval Of The Parliament 

• The proclamation issued by the President has to be ratified by both Houses of Parliament (Lok Sabha & Rajya Sabha). The deadline for ratification of the Proclamation is within two months.

• After initial ratification, the President's Rule remains for six months in the particular state.

Step 4: Extension Or Revocation Of The Proclamation

• The announcement can be extended further for up to three years in six-monthly periods with the approval of Parliament every six months.

• Once the state has stabilized or there is a new government, the Proclamation shall be withdrawn.

Grounds For Imposing The President’s Rule

President's Rule is applied in the below cases:

Breakdown Of Constitutional Machinery

The President's Rule can be applied if the President of India, either on the recommendation of the report of the Governor of the state or otherwise, is convinced that the state government cannot operate as per the provisions of the Constitution. 

Hung Assembly

In some cases, in the elections of the legislative assembly, no party or coalition obtains the required majority. The absence of a majority leads to a hung assembly. Due to the hung assembly, no government can be formed within the required timeframe. In this case, the President’s rule can be imposed.

Loss Of Majority

In case of the loss of the majority of the ruling party and they fail to assert their domination in the assembly, the President's rule can be implemented

Disobedience Of Constitutional Instructions

As per Article 365 of the Indian Constitution, whenever a State refuses to obey or fails to implement any direction given by the Center, the President is empowered to proclaim that there has occurred a situation where the provisions of the Constitution are unable to administer the government of the State.

Failure Of Law And Order

If the state government is unable to ensure law and order, the President's rule can be imposed

Political Crisis

Defections, resignations, or party conflicts within the party that give rise to a political crisis and render the state government incapable of working may also lead to the imposition of President's Rule.

Key Judicial Rulings

Following are landmark judgments related to the President’s rule in India:

State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Union of India (1977) 

The Supreme Court ruled that the President's power to enforce the President's Rule is not unlimited and can be challenged in the courts. The President may act based on the Governor's report or "otherwise". This means the President's satisfaction may be based on materials other than the report of the Governor. Courts have no jurisdiction to scrutinize the President's satisfaction on any premise. If satisfaction is mala fide or on extraneous considerations, the court has jurisdiction to consider it because, in either case, there would be no satisfaction of the President. 

The role of the court is to examine whether the restrictions on the power granted by the Constitution have been respected or exceeded. The Court has the power to intervene when it is grossly perverse, unreasonable, patent abuse of the provision or an excess of power. 

S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) 

The Supreme Court held that a Proclamation issued by the President is amenable to judicial review. Though the decision to apply the President's Rule is based on the satisfaction of the President, this satisfaction is not beyond judicial review. The power under Article 356 must be exercised judiciously and with utmost caution. 

Criticism & Controversies

The government’s decision to impose President’s Rule in Manipur received the following criticism:

Misuse For Political Reasons

It has been misused by the central government to overthrow opposition party state governments. It can also be treated as encroaching upon the autonomy of the State.

Prolonged Imposition

The Constitution provides for a limited period of the President’s rule. However, in certain cases, it has been imposed for a prolonged duration. Prolonged imposition of the President’s rule can create uncertainty and instability in the State.

Demoralizing Democracy

Imposing the President's Rule is also to be seen as derailing democracy. The state government is chosen by the people of the state. This is the main proponent of democracy. Therefore, removing the state government by the President’s rule amounts to demoralizing the democracy.

Conclusion

Although there has been a genuinely constitutional edge in certain specific circumstances, the President's Rule has remained a matter of argument in Indian politics. The recently imposed President's Rule in Manipur shows the teetering balance between national security and state autonomy. With knowledge of the provisions of law, procedures involved, and judgments, the citizens and stakeholder groups can now assess better and name their views regarding it and call for its practical application.

FAQs

A few FAQs based on President’s Rule in Manipur is as follows:

Q1. How did the ethnic violence in Manipur lead to President's Rule?

The prolonged ethnic violence between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities disrupted law and order, leading the central government to conclude that the state government could not fulfill its constitutional duties. This situation directly resulted in the invocation of Article 356.  

Q2. What are the criticisms of imposing President's Rule?

Criticisms include its potential misuse for political reasons, prolonged imposition leading to instability, and the demoralization of democracy by overriding the state government's mandate. These concerns highlight the need for careful application.  

Q3. How does the Governor's report influence the President's decision?

The Governor's report is a critical piece of evidence, detailing the state's situation and recommending President's Rule. While the President can act on other information, the Governor's report carries significant weight.  

Q4. What happens to the State Legislative Assembly during President's Rule?

During President's Rule, the State Legislative Assembly can be either suspended or dissolved. The Parliament assumes the legislative duties of the state.  

Q5. How does the High Court's jurisdiction remain unaffected during President's Rule?

The High Court's judicial powers remain intact during President's Rule, ensuring the continued functioning of the judiciary and safeguarding citizens' legal rights. This maintains the separation of powers.