GAP OF SIX MONTHS BETWEEN TWO SESSIONS OF THE STATE

ASSEMBLY AMOUNTS TO CONSTITUTIONAL BREAKDOWN AND

THUS CALLS FOR IMPOSITION OF PRESIDENT’S RULE?

Article 355 imposes a duty on the centre to ensure that the government of every state is carried
on in accordance with the provisions of the constitution. It is this duty in performance of which
the centre takes over the government of a state under article 356.1

The constitutional machinery in a state may fail to function in a numerous ways. There may be a
political instability where no party is in a position to form a government, a constitutional break
down, where ministry acts contrary to the provisons of the constitution, which may bring about
the use of the machinery, provided by article 356.2

In the matter at hand the Governor of the State Of Tarunachal Pradesh informed the
constitutional breakdown in his state and called for the presidents immediate intervention-
whereby the president imposed a presidents rule.3

The powers of president under Article 356 have been frequently exercised since the
commencement of the constitution. The occasions for its exercise emphasize not only the
importance of the power in maintaining stable governments in the state, but also the vital role
which the governor has to play enabling the union executive to exercise the powers vested in it
under article 356..4

Afore said para gives an idea into the responsibility and importance of governor in enabling the
president to understand the constitutional situation in a state. Governor being the head of the
executive in the state holds the duty of informing the president whether or not he should
intervene to take over the control of the state government to uphold the constitutional mandate5.
Such vast discretionary power to the governor is granted under Article 356(1) of the constitution
of India that report of governor is an important rather vital piece of information regarding a
state’s situation.6

In State Of Rajasthan v. Union of India7 it was pointed out that

Article 356 (1) uses the words ‘cannot be carried out on accordance with the provisions of the
constitution ‘ is having a very wide and important meaning thereby’ failure to comply with each

1
J N Pandey, Constitutional law of India, page 658 ,56 th edn. 2019
2
S R Bommai V. Union Of India 1994 SCC (3) 1
3
Para 13 of Moot proposition.
4
State of Rajasthan v. union of india 1977 SCC (3) 592
5
B.P. Singhal v. Union of India, (2010) 6 SCC 331
6
Shamsher singh v. state of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2193
7
Supra n.2
and every provisions of the constitution’. Fazal Ali J (vide para 209) gives a wider meaning to
this expression by equating it with ‘break down of constitutional machinery’.

Relying upon the above judgement it is clear that failure to comply with any of the provisons of
the constitution by the state could result in the imposition of presidents rule.

Article 174(1) of the constitution of India provides that

“The governor from time to time summon the house or each house of the legislature of the state
to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between the last
sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session “.8

In the matter at hand the governor was unable to summon the house on time due to the political
instability in the state.9

Non- observance of the provisions of Article 174(1) in the present situation would mean that the
Government of the State cannot be carried in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution
within the meaning of Article 356(1) of the Constitution and the President would step in.

Hence it is made clear that gap of six months between two sessions of the state assembly
amounts to constitutional breakdown and thus the calls for imposition of president’s rule is
justified.

8
PM Bakshi, The Constitution Of India , page no. 150 , 19 th edn 2019
9
Para 6 ,7&8 of the moot proposition