Account for the legal and political factors responsible for the reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Governments since mid 1990s.  (UPSC GS 2 2023/15 marks)

Introduction:

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution allows the President of India to impose President's Rule in a state if there is a failure of the constitutional machinery. Historically, this article has been used by the central government to dismiss state governments. However, since the mid-1990s, there has been a significant reduction in the frequency of its use due to a combination of legal and political factors.

Legal Factors:

1. Supreme Court Guidelines: 

   - Bommai case (1994) laid down strict guidelines that the power to dissolve state governments under Article 356 should only be used in extraordinary situations where the constitutional machinery in a state has completely broken down. 

   - This legal case has deterred arbitrary use of Article 356.

2. Amendments to the Constitution:

   - The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976introduced changes to Article 356, emphasizing that the President's satisfaction must be based on objective material.

   - The 44th Amendment Act of 1978 further limited the executive's discretion in invoking Article 356.

3. Use of Article 365:

   - Article 365 provides for non-compliance with directions of the Union government.

   - Governments have often used this article instead of Article 356, reducing the need for direct intervention.

4. Governor's Role: 

   - Article 356 relies on the Governor's report as a trigger for its invocation. Governors are expected to be impartial, but their role has been questioned when it comes to party politics. 

   - Legal checks have been put in place to prevent partisan Governor reports.

   - Example: In the Karnataka case (2018), the Governor's actions were subject to legal scrutiny, and the Supreme Court ordered a floor test to ensure a fair outcome.

5. Sarkaria Commission Recommendations:

   - It recommended that Article 356 should only be invoked as a last resort when all other alternatives have been exhausted.

   - This legal guideline has discouraged its misuse.

6. Judicial Scrutiny: 

   - Courts have become more active in scrutinizing the President's rule imposed under Article 356. This has created a legal deterrent against misuse.

   - In the Arunachal Pradesh case (2016), the Supreme Court declared the imposition of President's rule as unconstitutional, citing that it was driven by political considerations rather than a breakdown of constitutional machinery.

7. Strengthened Anti-Defection Law:

   - The 52nd Amendment Act (1985) strengthened the Anti-Defection Law, reducing the likelihood of state governments collapsing due to defections.

8. Federal Structure: 

   - India's federal structure necessitates cooperation between the central and state governments. 

   - Frequent misuse of Article 356 can lead to strained relations, which can have legal repercussions.

Political Factors:

1. Coalition Politics:

   - The era of coalition politics at the national level has necessitated cooperation with regional parties, reducing the inclination to dismiss state governments run by potential coalition partners.

2. Public Opinion and Backlash:

   - Frequent use of Article 356 led to public backlash and was often seen as an anti-democratic move.

   - Politicians are now more aware of the political costs associated with its misuse.

3. Emergence of Strong State Leaders:

   - Strong regional leaders with mass appeal have become crucial in Indian politics.

   - Dismissing state governments led by such leaders can have electoral repercussions.

4. Alliance Politics:

   - Parties often form alliances at both the national and state levels.

   - The need to maintain stability within these alliances discourages arbitrary use of Article 356.

5. Regional Parties' Influence:

   - The rise of regional parties with significant electoral clout has made it politically challenging for the central government to dismiss state governments, leading to a more cautious approach.

6. Electoral Outcomes:

   - In several instances, state governments dismissed under Article 356 were later re-elected by a significant majority.

   - This demonstrated the ineffectiveness of such interventions in altering electoral outcomes.

Conclusion:

The reduced frequency of using Article 356 by the Union Governments is a good symbol for healthy federalism. This shift reflects a maturing democracy that values constitutional principles and political pragmatism over arbitrary central intervention in state affairs.