The reduced frequency of invoking Article 356 of the Indian Constitution since the mid-1990s can be attributed to a combination of legal and political factors. Article 356, also known as the "President's Rule" provision, allows the President of India to dissolve a state government and assume direct control over the state's administration in cases of a breakdown of constitutional machinery. Here's an account of the key factors contributing to the reduced use of Article 356:

Legal Factors

1. Judicial Scrutiny and Constraints

• Supreme Court Judgments: The Supreme Court has played a significant role in limiting the misuse of Article 356. In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Court emphasized that the imposition of President's Rule should be used only in exceptional cases and not as a tool for political expediency. The judgment established that the exercise of Article 356 is subject to judicial review, which has deterred its arbitrary use.

• Guidelines for Invocation: The Court's ruling in S.R. Bommai established guidelines for invoking Article 356, including the requirement that the President must base the decision on material evidence and that the action must be justified and proportionate to the situation.

2. Increased Emphasis on Federal Principles

• Federal Structure: The Indian Constitution is designed to maintain a balance of power between the central and state governments. There has been an increased emphasis on respecting the federal structure, and the use of Article 356 has been constrained to preserve the autonomy of states.

• Legal Reforms: Legal and constitutional reforms have reinforced the principle of federalism, making it more challenging to justify the imposition of President's Rule. These reforms have contributed to a more cautious approach to using Article 356.

Political Factors

1. Strengthening of State Governments

• Political Stability: Since the mid-1990s, there has been a trend toward greater political stability at the state level. This stability has reduced the likelihood of situations where President's Rule might be considered necessary.

• Electoral Reforms: Electoral reforms and the increased strength of regional parties have led to more stable state governments. The presence of strong regional parties and coalition governments has made it politically costly and less justifiable to impose President's Rule.

2. Political Consensus and Coalition Politics

• Coalition Governments: The era of coalition politics at the central level has led to a greater emphasis on political consensus and cooperation between the center and the states. The central government has become more cautious in using Article 356 due to the need to maintain alliances and avoid political backlash.

• Political Backlash: The use of Article 356 has often been perceived as a political maneuver to undermine opposition-ruled state governments. This perception has led to political backlash and criticism, discouraging its frequent use.

3. Increased Accountability and Transparency

• Media Scrutiny: The rise of media scrutiny and public awareness has increased the accountability of the central government. Any attempt to invoke Article 356 for political reasons is likely to face intense public and media scrutiny, making its use more controversial and less frequent.

• Democratic Norms: There has been a growing emphasis on democratic norms and principles. The central government is now more aware of the need to respect democratic institutions and the autonomy of state governments, which has led to a more restrained approach in invoking Article 356.

4. Rise of Regional and National Parties

• Political Influence: The rise of regional parties and their increasing influence in national politics has created a more complex political landscape. The central government must navigate relationships with these parties carefully, making it less likely to use Article 356 to dissolve state governments led by regional parties.

• Negotiation and Compromise: The central government often prefers negotiation and compromise with state governments rather than resorting to Article 356. The need to maintain political alliances and address regional aspirations has led to a more cooperative approach.

Conclusion

The reduced frequency of using Article 356 since the mid-1990s can be attributed to a combination of legal and political factors. Legal constraints imposed by judicial scrutiny and the emphasis on federal principles have limited the scope for invoking President's Rule. Politically, the increasing stability of state governments, coalition politics, and the need for political consensus have contributed to a more cautious approach. The growing emphasis on democratic norms and transparency has further discouraged the arbitrary use of Article 356, reflecting a more respectful and balanced approach to federal governance.

Factors contributing to the reduced use of Article 356 since the mid-1990s:

Legal Factors:

• Judicial Scrutiny: The Supreme Court has increasingly scrutinized the use of Article 356, setting stricter guidelines and emphasizing the need for a "breakdown of constitutional machinery" rather than mere political disagreements. Landmark cases like S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) established that a state government cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of a loss of majority in the Assembly. The court also emphasized the need for clear evidence of a breakdown in law and order, and for the Governor to act fairly and objectively.
• Constitutional Amendments: Amendments in 1992 (42nd Amendment) and 1995 (44th Amendment) strengthened the position of state governments by introducing mechanisms for the President to consult with the Governor and the Chief Justice of India before imposing President's rule. These amendments also made it mandatory for the President to receive a report from the Governor before imposing President's Rule, adding another layer of scrutiny.
• Central Government Accountability: The use of Article 356 now requires the Central Government to provide justification for its actions, leading to greater accountability. This has made the government more cautious in using the provision, as it may face legal challenges and political backlash.

Political Factors:

• Rise of Regional Parties: The growing influence of regional parties in Indian politics has led to a more fragmented political landscape, making it difficult for the Central Government to impose its will on states. Regional parties are better equipped to resist the use of Article 356, given their strong local base and political clout.
• Shifting Political Landscape: The emergence of coalition governments at the national level has also contributed to the decline in the use of Article 356. Coalition partners are less likely to support the imposition of President's Rule, as it might be perceived as a threat to their own political interests.
• Public Opinion and Media Scrutiny: Public opinion and media coverage have become increasingly critical of the use of Article 356, viewing it as a tool for political manipulation. This increased scrutiny has made it more difficult for the government to invoke the provision without facing public disapproval and political repercussions.
• Federal Principles and Inter-State Harmony: A shift towards a more cooperative and harmonious federal structure has also influenced the use of Article 356. The emphasis on inter-state cooperation and coordination has made the Central Government less inclined to use a provision that can be seen as undermining federal principles and creating discord among states.

Conclusion:

The combination of legal and political factors has resulted in a significant decrease in the frequency of using Article 356 since the mid-1990s. While the provision remains a part of the Indian Constitution, its use has become more nuanced, contingent upon strict judicial scrutiny, political considerations, and the need for strong justification. This shift reflects a move towards a more federal and democratic system in India, where states have greater autonomy and political power.

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Union Government to impose President's Rule in a state in cases where the government of that state cannot function in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. However, since the mid-1990s, there has been a significant decline in the frequency of invoking Article 356. This decline can be attributed to several legal and political factors:

Legal Factors:

1. Bommai Judgment (1994): In S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the imposition of President's Rule, emphasizing that it should be used only in exceptional circumstances and not as a means to settle political scores. The court also laid down that the President's Rule can be imposed only after the failure of constitutional machinery, and not as a precautionary measure.
2. ** judicial review**: The Supreme Court's willingness to exercise judicial review over the imposition of President's Rule has made the Union Government more cautious in invoking Article 356. The court has consistently emphasized the need for a more nuanced approach, taking into account the facts and circumstances of each case.

Political Factors:

1. Coalition Politics: With the advent of coalition governments at the center, there has been a shift towards a more decentralized approach to governance. Coalition partners from different states have forced the Union Government to be more circumspect in using Article 356, as it may alienate key allies.
2. Federalism and State Autonomy: The increasing assertion of state autonomy and federalism has led to a greater recognition of the rights and powers of state governments. This has made the Union Government more hesitant to impose President's Rule, as it may be seen as an encroachment on state sovereignty.
3. Electoral Politics: The competitive nature of electoral politics has made it difficult for the Union Government to justify the imposition of President's Rule, especially when it is perceived as a move to undermine the political opposition. The fear of electoral backlash has led to a more cautious approach.
4. Regional Parties and State-Based Politics: The rise of regional parties and state-based political outfits has increased the political costs of imposing President's Rule. Regional parties have successfully mobilized public opinion against the Union Government's interference in state affairs, making it more difficult to justify the use of Article 356.
5. Changing Political Culture: There has been a growing recognition of the need for constitutional propriety and the limits of executive power. This changing political culture has led to a greater emphasis on finding political solutions within the framework of democratic institutions, rather than resorting to constitutional provisions like Article 356.

In conclusion, the reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Government since the mid-1990s can be attributed to a combination of legal and political factors. The judiciary's emphasis on constitutional propriety, the shift towards coalition politics and federalism, electoral politics, and the rise of regional parties have all contributed to a more cautious approach to imposing President's Rule.