In 

India, President's rule is the suspension of state government and imposition of direct Union

government rule in a state. Under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, if a state government is
unable to function according to Constitutional provisions, the Union government can take direct
control of the state machinery. Subsequently, executive authority is exercised through the
centrally appointed governor, who has the authority to appoint other administrators to assist
them. The administrators are usually nonpartisan retired civil servants.
When a state government is functioning correctly, it is run by an elected Council of Ministers
responsible to the state's legislative assembly (Vidhan Sabha). The council is led by the chief
minister, who is the chief executive of the state; the Governor is only a constitutional head.
However, during President's rule, the Council of Ministers is dissolved, vacating the office of
Chief Minister. Furthermore, the Vidhan Sabha is either prorogued or dissolved, necessitating a
new election.
Prior to 2019, the constitution of the state of Jammu and Kashmir had a similar system
of Governor's rule, under its Section 92. The state's governor issued a proclamation, after
obtaining the consent of the President of India allowing Governor's rule for a period of up to six
months after which President's rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India can be imposed.
After the revocation of Article 370, President's rule applies to Jammu and Kashmir under section
73 (since Article 356 of Constitution of India does not apply to union territories) of Jammu and
Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019.
Following the 1994 landmark judgment in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, the Supreme Court of
India restricted arbitrary impositions of President's rule.
Chhattisgarh and Telangana are the only states where the President's rule has not been
imposed so far.

Imposition in state[edit]
In practice, President's rule has been imposed in a state under any one of the following different
circumstances:

 A state legislature is unable to elect a leader as chief minister for a time prescribed
by the Governor of that state, at the Will of Governor.
 Breakdown of a coalition leading to the Chief minister having minority support in the
house and the Chief minister fails/will definitely fail to prove otherwise, within a time
prescribed by the Governor of that state.
 Loss of majority in the assembly due to a vote of no-confidence in the house.
 Elections postponed for unavoidable reasons like war, epidemic, pandemic or natural
disasters.
 On the report of the Governor of the state if said state's Constitutional machinery or
legislature fails to abide by Constitutional norms.
If approved by both houses, President's rule can continue for 6 months. It can be extended for a
maximum of 3 years with the approval of the Parliament done every 6 months. If the Lok
Sabha is dissolved during this time, the rule is valid for 30 days from the first sitting of the Lok
Sabha provided that this continuance has already been approved by Rajya Sabha. The 44th
Amendment Act of 1978 introduced a new provision to put a restraint on the power of Parliament
to extend the President's rule in a state. According to this provision, the president's rule can only
be extended over a year every 6 months under the following conditions:

 There is already a national emergency throughout India, or in the whole or any part
of the state.
 The Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be conducted in the state.
President's rule can be revoked at any time by the President and does not need Parliament's
approval.
Until the mid-1990s, President's rule was often imposed in states through the abuse of authority
of Governors who were in collusion with the Union government. The Supreme Court of India in
March 1994 established a precedent in S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, due to which such abuse
has been drastically reduced.

Imposition in Union territories with a Legislative

Assembly[edit]
Article 356 is not applicable to Union territories, so there are many ways by which President's
rule can be imposed in different Union territories with a Legislative Assembly.

Jammu and Kashmir[edit]

Until the revocation of Article 370 and bifurcation into two Union territories, President's rule
applied after the application of Governor's rule for 6 months.
After the revocation and bifurcation, the reorganized Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is
subject to the section 73 of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019, which is used to
impose President's rule as the Article 356 is not applicable to Union Territories. The provision
states:
73. If the President, on receipt of a report from the Lieutenant Governor of Union territory of
Jammu and Kashmir, or otherwise, is satisfied,—
(a) that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the Union territory of Jammu and
Kashmir cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or
(b) that for the proper administration of Union territory of Jammu and Kashmir it is necessary or
expedient so to do,
the President may, by order, suspend the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act for
such period as he thinks fit and makes such incidental and consequential provisions as may
appear to him to be necessary or expedient for administering the Union territory of
Jammu and Kashmir in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

Delhi[edit]
In NCT of Delhi, President's rule is applied on the basis of Article 239AB of the Constitution of
India (as the Article 356 is not applicable to Union Territories) which reads thus:
239AB. -If the President, on receipt of a report from the Lieutenant Governor or otherwise, is
satisfied—
(a)that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the National Capital Territory cannot
be carried on in accordance with the provisions of article 239AA or of any law made in pursuance
of that article; or
(b)that for the proper administration of the National Capital Territory it is necessary or expedient
so to do,
the President may by order suspend the operation of any provision of Article 239AA or of all or
any of the provisions of any law made in pursuance of that article for such period and subject to
such conditions as maybe specified in such law and make such incidental and consequential
provisions as may appear to him to be necessary or expedient for administering the National
Capital Territory in accordance with the
provisions of article 239 and article 239AA.

Puducherry[edit]
In the Union Territory of Puducherry, President's rule is applied on the basis of Article 51 of
the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963.[1] Which thus reads
51. -If the President, on receipt of a report from the Administrator of the Union territory or
otherwise, is satisfied,―
(a) that a situation has arisen in which the administration of the Union territory cannot be carried
on in accordance with the provisions of this Act, or
(b) that for the proper administration of the Union territory it is necessary or expedient so to do,
the President may, by order, suspend the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act for
such period as he thinks fit and make such incidental and consequential provisions as may
appear to him to be necessary or expedient for administering the Union territory in accordance
with the provisions of article 239.

Criticism[edit]
Article 356 gives wide powers to the Union government to assert its authority over a state if civil
unrest occurs and the state government does not have the means to end it. Though the purpose
of this article is to give more powers to the Union government to preserve the unity and integrity
of the nation, it has often been misused[2] by the ruling parties at the Centre, who used it as a
pretext to dissolve state governments ruled by political opponents.[3] Thus, it is seen by many as
a threat to the federal state system. Since the adoption of the Indian constitution in 1950, the
Union government has used this article several times[4] to dissolve elected state governments by
imposing President's rule.
The article was used for the first time in Punjab on 20 June 1951. It was also used in the state of
Patiala and East Punjab States Union (PEPSU) and during the Vimochana Samaram to dismiss
the democratically elected Communist state government of Kerala on 31 July 1959. In the 1970s
and 1980s, it was common for the Union government to dismiss state governments led by
opposition parties.[5] The Indira Gandhi regime and post-emergency Janata Party were noted for
this practice. Indira Gandhi's government between 1966 and 1977 is known to have imposed
President's rule 39 times in different states. Similarly, the Janata Party which came to power after
the emergency issued President's rule in 9 states which were ruled by Congress.
The practice was limited only after the Supreme Court established strict guidelines for imposing
President's rule in its ruling on the S. R. Bommai v. Union of India case in 1994. This landmark
judgement has helped curtail the widespread abuse of Article 356. The judgement established
strict guidelines for imposing President's rule. Subsequent pronouncements by the Supreme
Court in Jharkhand and other states have further limited the scope for misuse of Article 356. Only
since the early 2000s has the number of cases of imposition of President's rule has been
drastically reduced.
Article 356 has always been the focal point of a wider debate of the federal structure of
government in Indian polity.[6] The Sarkaria Commission Report on Centre-State Relations 1983
has recommended that Article 356 must be used "very sparingly, in extreme cases, as a
measure of last resort, when all the other alternatives fail to prevent or rectify a breakdown of
Constitutional machinery in the state".[7] Dr. Ambedkar also said that it would be like a "dead
letter" (i.e. would be used rarely).

List of instances[edit]
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please
help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October
2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
  Denotes currently imposed President rule
 Reason(s)
to impose
Date of Date of
State Term Duration the
imposition revocation
President's
rule

Breakdown of
law & order
due to Jai
18 January 10 December Andhra
1 327 days
1973 1973 Agitation,
Andhra in P. V.
Pradesh Narasimha
Rao's tenure.

28 February
2 8 June 201
2014