Role of President

Founding fathers had expected that Articles 356 of our Constitution shall remain a dead letter, but his article has generated maximum heat in the Parliamentary democracy of the country.  Whenever a state is brought under president rule under this article, a controversy is created about justification of such action.  Action has always been criticized as political one.  Sate government have always challenged it as undemocratice and against federal principles.  Whatever would have been reason for the use of this article, it always created a constitutional as well as political problem.

On 22nd September 1998, Union council of ministers headed by the Prime Minister resolved to impose President rule in Bihar and this resolution was handed over to the President Sri K R Narayan personally by few important ministers of the cabinet. In the said resolution, the council of ministers advised President to impose President rule in Bihar under Article 356.  Instead of acting on the advice of council of ministers the President acted on the advice of legal experts rejecting the advice of council of ministers and returned back the proclamation. Last year, the same President had also returned a similar advance in case of state of Uttar Pradesh, where Gujral's cabinet had recommended the imposition of President rule.

Article  74 (1) of the Constitution of India provides: There shall be a council of ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall in exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice.  Clause (2) of the same article provides: The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by ministers to be President shall be inquired into in any court."

The constitution provides that President shall act on the advice of council of ministers. When council of ministers advices President to act, the President seeks advice from legal experts and instead of acting on the advice of council of minister he acts on the advice of legal experts.