The President’s Rule in India, as outlined in Article 356 of the Constitution, pertains to the suspension of the state government and the imposition of direct central government control in a state in certain exceptional circumstances. The relationship between fundamental rights and the President’s Rule is nuanced, and the Constitution provides safeguards to ensure the protection of individual liberties during such periods.
- Article 356 – President’s Rule:
- Article 356 empowers the President to proclaim a state of emergency in a state if he/she is satisfied that the governance of the state cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This typically occurs when there is a failure of constitutional machinery in a state, and the state government is unable to function according to constitutional norms.
- Impact on State Government:
- During the President’s Rule, the elected state government is either dismissed or suspended, and the state is placed under the direct control of the President through the appointment of a Governor to administer the state on behalf of the President.
- Impact on Fundamental Rights:
- The imposition of President’s Rule does not automatically suspend or curtail fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. Citizens continue to enjoy their fundamental rights during this period.
- Governor’s Role:
- The Governor, acting on behalf of the President, assumes executive powers in the state. However, the Governor is expected to exercise these powers in accordance with constitutional principles and not infringe upon the fundamental rights of the citizens.
- Article 358 and Article 359:
- While Article 356 itself does not directly impact fundamental rights, the suspension of state governments can, in certain situations, trigger the application of Article 358 and Article 359. Article 358 allows for the suspension of the operation of Article 19 (certain freedoms, like freedom of speech and expression) during a proclamation of emergency under Article 352. Article 359 allows the President, by order, to suspend the enforcement of certain fundamental rights under specified conditions. However, these provisions are not automatically invoked with the imposition of President’s Rule, and their application would depend on the circumstances leading to the imposition.
- Judicial Review:
- The imposition of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review. The courts have the authority to examine the validity of the President’s proclamation and scrutinize whether the constitutional machinery in the state has genuinely broken down. Courts also have the responsibility to ensure that fundamental rights are not unduly compromised during the period of President’s Rule.
- Duration and Revocation:
- President’s Rule is not intended to be a permanent or long-term measure. It is meant to be a temporary intervention until normalcy is restored. The President’s Rule can be extended with parliamentary approval, but the aim is to reinstate democratic governance in the state as soon as possible.
In summary, while the imposition of President’s Rule may result in the suspension of the elected state government, fundamental rights of citizens are generally not automatically suspended. However, the circumstances leading to the imposition and the actions taken during President’s Rule may impact the exercise of these rights. Judicial oversight plays a crucial role in ensuring that the imposition of President’s Rule is in line with constitutional principles, and citizens’ rights are protected.
