Vol. 11, Issue 4, Part F (2025)

Article 356 authorizes the Union government to impose President's rule on the state when its constitutional framework ceases to function. After the adoption of the Indian Constitution, Article 356 has emerged and evolved into one of the most perennially disputed and contested issues in the Indian federalism structure. As I seek to demonstrate, what has been historically recorded as an extraordinary safeguard has, more often than not, straddled into politically congenial territory. In this context, I attempt a thorough evaluation of the claimed ‘abuses’ of Article 356 since its inception in 1950 by successive central governments in relation to the use of this constitutional provision which, at times, has been spun into a most unobtrusive yet potent device of political suppression of state governments run by the opposition.

This research conducted using court rulings, commission reports, and legislative history sources demonstrates that Article 356 overlaps too much with areas covered by state opposition parties, and was especially so when the Indian National Congress were in power. The judicial turning point came in the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) where the Supreme Court of India limited executive discretion with the floor of the legislature determining who commands the majority, not the governor’s proclamation. This landmark judgment, in tandem with the recommendations of the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commissions, significantly reduced the frequency and arbitrariness of President’s Rule.

However, recent reports of purported partisan manipulation and the continuation of minor federal tensions show that abuse is still possible. The threat of Article 356 still hangs over India's federal agreement in a time of coalition politics, regional assertiveness, and uneven center-state dependencies. In order to guarantee that Article 356 is strictly employed as a last resort, the analysis urges judicial vigilance, political restraint, and strengthened constitutional safeguards. In the end, the study makes the case that a strong commitment to the cooperative federalism ethos is just as important to the health of India's federal democracy as legal checks.