Article 356 gives the central government a genuinely extraordinary power: the ability to dissolve an elected state government and place a state under direct central administration. This article explains how the power works, the constitutional constraints placed on it, and how it has actually been used since 2014.
What President’s Rule Actually Does
When President’s Rule is imposed on a state under Article 356 of the Constitution, the state’s elected government is dissolved or suspended, its legislative assembly is typically dissolved or kept in suspended animation, and the state comes under direct central administration, exercised through the Governor on behalf of the President, a power originally intended for genuine constitutional breakdowns, situations where a state’s government could not be carried on in accordance with the Constitution, rather than as a routine political tool.
The Bommai Judgment’s Constraints
Historical concern about this power being misused for purely political purposes led to one of Indian constitutional law’s most significant judgments: the Supreme Court’s 1994 ruling in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, decided by a nine-judge bench, according to Drishti IAS’s explainer on the case, which established that a state government’s majority must be tested on the floor of the assembly itself, rather than being determined by the Governor’s own subjective assessment, and crucially made the President’s proclamation imposing central rule subject to judicial review, meaning courts could subsequently strike down an improperly imposed President’s Rule, a constraint that fundamentally changed how the power could be used going forward.
Read this next: Article 370 Abrogation: Modi's Decision to End J&K's Special Status
Notable Instances Since 2014
President’s Rule has been imposed on several states since 2014, according to tracking compiled by Wikipedia’s coverage of the mechanism’s use, including Arunachal Pradesh in 2016, a case the Supreme Court subsequently reversed, and Uttarakhand the same year, similarly struck down by the Uttarakhand High Court, both instances where judicial review, made possible by the Bommai precedent, directly overturned the central government’s action. Jammu and Kashmir has seen President’s Rule imposed multiple times, including in 2015 and 2018, and a prolonged period of central administration following Article 370’s 2019 abrogation. Maharashtra experienced a brief period of President’s Rule in November 2019 amid post-election coalition uncertainty, according to Drishti IAS’s coverage, before a government was subsequently formed.
The Manipur Case
The most recent and, in some respects, most closely scrutinised instance came in Manipur, where President’s Rule was imposed in February 2025 following Chief Minister N. Biren Singh’s resignation amid the state’s prolonged ethnic conflict, which had by that point continued for an extended period. The Wire’s coverage specifically noted the central intervention came 652 days after the underlying violence had first begun, a gap critics cited as evidence the Centre had been notably slow to invoke this extraordinary power despite the conflict’s severity, with the President’s Rule subsequently extended multiple times, according to further tracking by Insights on India and National Herald, through at least early 2026.
If you like this, you must read: Governor's Role Controversies: Centre-State Tensions Explained
How This Compares to the Pre-Bommai Era
Historically, Article 356 was used far more frequently than it has been since 2014, with more than 90 instances recorded across India’s post-independence history through 2014, according to background compiled in the same Wikipedia tracking, a majority of them occurring under Congress-led governments in the decades before the Bommai judgment’s 1994 constraints took effect, a period during which the power was widely criticised, including by the Sarkaria Commission covered in our earlier article on the Inter-State Council, as having been used opportunistically to dismiss opposition-led state governments for essentially political rather than genuine constitutional-breakdown reasons.
Why the Post-Bommai Pattern Looks Different
The considerably more selective and less frequent use of Article 356 since the Bommai judgment, a pattern that has continued through the Modi government’s tenure, reflects the judgment’s lasting structural effect on how the power can be exercised, since any improperly imposed President’s Rule now faces a real prospect of judicial reversal, as the Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand cases from 2016 both demonstrated, a meaningful check that did not exist during the pre-1994 era when the power was used with considerably less judicial constraint.
Bottom Line
Article 356’s President’s Rule power has been invoked several times since 2014, including in Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand in 2016, both later judicially reversed, Jammu and Kashmir on multiple occasions, Maharashtra briefly in 2019, and most recently Manipur from February 2025 amid its prolonged ethnic conflict, a usage pattern that, while still drawing genuine political criticism in specific instances, remains considerably less frequent than the more than 90 instances recorded in the decades before the Supreme Court’s 1994 Bommai judgment imposed meaningful judicial constraints on how and when the power can be used.
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available constitutional records and news reports listed below. It is written for general informational purposes and does not represent an official statement from the Government of India or the Supreme Court of India.
Sources
FAQ
What did the Bommai judgment change about President’s Rule?
It required that a state government’s majority be tested on the assembly floor rather than by the Governor’s own assessment, and made the President’s proclamation imposing central rule subject to judicial review.
Which states have seen President’s Rule imposed since 2014?
Arunachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand in 2016 (both later judicially reversed), Jammu and Kashmir on multiple occasions, Maharashtra briefly in 2019, and Manipur from February 2025.
Is Article 356 used more or less often now than before 1994?
Considerably less often. More than 90 instances were recorded before the Bommai judgment, mostly under pre-1994 Congress-led governments, compared to a smaller, more selective, and judicially constrained number of instances since. —
