Article 356 is a provision in Part XVIII of the Constitution of India that deals with the imposition of President's Rule in a state due to the failure of constitutional machinery. Its origin lies in Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which allowed a provincial governor to supersede the self-ruling government if administration could not be carried out according to the Act. The framers, including Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, intended for it to be a "dead letter," used only in the "rarest of the rare cases" to preserve the integrity of the country.
The mechanism of Article 356(1) is triggered when the President is satisfied, either upon receiving a report from the State's Governor or "otherwise," that a situation has arisen where the state government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution. This proclamation results in the suspension of the elected state government and the transfer of its executive powers to the President, who governs through the Governor. The powers of the State Legislature are then exercised by the Parliament. A proclamation must be approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament within two months of its issue, as per Article 356(3). Initially valid for six months, it can be extended up to a maximum of three years with parliamentary approval every six months.
The provision has been significantly shaped by amendments and judicial review. The 38th Amendment Act, 1975, made the President's satisfaction final and beyond judicial review, but the 44th Amendment Act, 1978, restored judicial review and added constraints, stipulating that President's Rule cannot be extended beyond one year unless a national emergency is in operation or the Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be held.
The landmark judgment of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) fundamentally changed the application of Article 356. The Supreme Court ruled that the Presidential proclamation is subject to judicial review on grounds of mala fide intention and must be based on objective material. The Court also held that the state legislative assembly cannot be dissolved before parliamentary approval, and the floor of the Assembly is the sole authority to test the government's majority. This judgment connected Article 356 to the concept of federalism and the basic structure of the Constitution, asserting that its misuse undermines the democratic and federal structure.