Read on Twitter
Imposition of President’s Rule in a state would be proper in the following situations:
1. Where after general elections to the assembly, no party secures a majority, that is, Hung Assembly.
2. Where the party having a majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry and ...
1. Where after general elections to the assembly, no party secures a majority, that is, Hung Assembly.
2. Where the party having a majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry and ...
the governor cannot find a coalition ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
3. Where a ministry resigns after its defeat in the assembly and no other party is willing or able to form a ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
4. Where a constitutional direction..
3. Where a ministry resigns after its defeat in the assembly and no other party is willing or able to form a ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.
4. Where a constitutional direction..
of the Central government is disregarded by the state government.
5. Internal subversion where, for example, a government is deliberately acting against the Constitution and the law or is fomenting a violent revolt....
5. Internal subversion where, for example, a government is deliberately acting against the Constitution and the law or is fomenting a violent revolt....
Physical breakdown where the government willfully refuses to discharge its constitutional obligations endangering the security of the state.
6. The imposition of President’s Rule in a state would be improper under the following situations:
6. The imposition of President’s Rule in a state would be improper under the following situations:
i. Where a ministry resigns or is dismissed on losing majority support in the assembly and the governor recommends imposition of President’s Rule without probing the possibility of forming an alternative ministry....
ii Where the governor makes his own assessment of the support of a ministry in the assembly and recommends imposition of President’s Rule without allowing the ministry to prove its majority on the floor of the Assembly.
iii. Where the ruling party enjoying majority support in the assembly has suffered a massive defeat in the general elections to the Lok Sabha such as in 1977 and 1980.
iv. Internal disturbances not amounting to internal subversion or physical breakdown.
iv. Internal disturbances not amounting to internal subversion or physical breakdown.
v. Maladministration in the state or allegations of corruption against the ministry or stringent financial exigencies of the state.
vi. Where the state government is not given prior warning to rectify itself except in case of extreme urgency leading to disastrous consequences.
vi. Where the state government is not given prior warning to rectify itself except in case of extreme urgency leading to disastrous consequences.
vii. Where the power is used to sort out intra-party problems of the ruling party, or for a purpose extraneous or irrelevant to the one for which it has been conferred by the Constitution.
viii. While dealing with the question as to whether the Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 was justiciable all the judges were unanimous in holding that the presidential proclamation was justiciable.
The Supreme Court held that the proclamation under Article 356(1) is not immune from judicial review. The validity of the Proclamation issued by the President under Article 356(1) is judicially reviewable to the extent of examining whether it was...
issued on the basis of any material at all or whether the material was relevant or whether the Proclamation was issued in the malafide exercise of the power. The Supreme Court or the High court can strike down the proclamation if it is found...
..to be malafide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds. The deletion of Clause (5) by the 44th Amendment Act, removes the cloud on the reviewability of the action. When a prima facie case is made out in the challenge to the ...
Proclamation, the Union of India has to produce the material on the basis of which action was taken. It cannot refuse to do so, if it seeks to defend the action. (END)
