Context: On February 13, 2025, President’s Rule was imposed in Manipur following the resignation of Chief Minister N. Biren Singh on February 9, 2025. 

The key reasons include:

• Ethnic violence between Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities since May 2023, led to over 200 deaths.

• Failure to restore law and order despite prolonged unrest.

• Political instability, as the ruling government could not reach an agreement on appointing a new Chief Minister, leading to the imposition of President Rule.

How President’s Rule Can Help in Resolving Conflict in Manipur? 

• Neutral Administration: Central rule will remove allegations of biased handling of ethnic violence, protecting both Kuki-Zo and Meitei communities. 

• Governor-supervised central forces can prevent ethnic clashes and maintain law & order in the state. 

• Electoral Stability: Prevents governance erosion by ending internal disputes within the ruling party. 

• Rehabilitation: Ensures fair relief and rehabilitation for 60,000 displaced people in camps for over 20 months.

What Does the Constitution Say?

• Under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, the President can impose President’s Rule in a state when its government cannot function according to the Constitution.

• This can be triggered in cases of external aggression, internal disturbances, or violence, where the constitutional machinery fails.

• The President, on receiving a report from the Governor, can issue a proclamation if she is satisfied that the government in the state has failed to maintain constitutional governance.

• In such cases, the executive powers of the state are transferred to the Union Government, while the state legislature is either suspended or dissolved.

• The High Court's powers remain unaffected.

• Article 356(1) empowers the President to issue a proclamation if the state's government is not functioning as per the Constitution.

• However, such a proclamation must be presented before Parliament, where it must be approved by a simple majority within two months.

• Once approved, the President's Rule remains in effect for six months and can be extended every six months, with Parliamentary approval.

• It cannot last for more than three years without special conditions, such as difficulties in conducting state elections.

Differences Between ‘Constitutional Emergency’ and ‘National Emergency’

Impact on Fundamental Rights

• During President’s Rule, fundamental rights of citizens are not suspended, unlike during a national emergency.

• Under Article 358, during a national emergency, certain freedoms under Article 19 can be suspended.

• However, during President’s Rule, the state continues to follow the Constitution, and rights are not affected.

Supreme Court's View on the Use of President's Rule

• The Supreme Court of India has addressed the misuse of Article 356 in the landmark S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) judgment. The Court ruled that:

• Article 356 should only be invoked as a last resort, as per the Sarkaria Commission.

• The President’s proclamation is subject to judicial review, ensuring that it is not invoked for political gains.

• The Centre must issue a warning to the state government before invoking President’s Rule.

• The State Assembly cannot be dissolved without Parliament’s approval.

• The President’s Rule must be for breakdown of constitutional machinery, and not just law and order failures.

Recommendations Regarding Imposition of President’s Rule

• Sarkaria Commission (1987): It recommended using Article 356 sparingly, only as a last resort when all alternatives fail to resolve a state's constitutional breakdown. 

• Punchhi Commission (2010): It proposed "localizing emergency provisions" under Articles 355 and 356, allowing Governor's rule localised areas, like a district or parts of it for up to 3 months. 

• National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC, 2000): Article 356 should not be deleted, but it must be used sparingly and only as a remedy of the last resort. 

• President’s Rule may continue even without an emergency if elections cannot be held. Article 356 should be amended accordingly.  

• Inter-State Council (Article 263): The Governor’s report recommending imposition of President’s rule should be detailed and explanatory.  

• The state at fault should receive a warning before President's Rule is imposed.  

• A special majority should be required for ratifying the proposal to impose President's Rule.

Conclusion

• President Rule is a powerful constitutional provision that ensures governance continues when a state’s administration collapses. However, its frequent imposition, particularly in states like Manipur, raises concerns over federalism and democratic governance. While President Rule in Manipur was imposed due to political instability and ethnic violence, historical misuses of Article 356 have led to strict judicial safeguards.