President’s Rule under Article 356 is meant to be the Constitution’s safety valve, not a routine political instrument. In the light of the eleventh imposition in Manipur in 2025, discuss the S.R. Bommai guardrails.

Introduction:

Article 356 allows the Centre to assume the functions of a State on the Governor's report or otherwise — what B.R. Ambedkar called a 'dead letter' best left unused; the imposition in Manipur on 13 February 2025, the State's eleventh, has revived the S.R. Bommai guardrails as the constitutional benchmark.

Constitutional design: Article 355 places a duty on the Union to protect every State; Articles 356 and 357 prescribe the procedure with parliamentary approval within two months and renewal capped at three years; Article 365 covers failure to comply with Union directions.

The Bommai guardrails: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), a nine-judge bench, held Article 356 to be a last resort, mandated a floor test on the floor of the House (applied in Uttarakhand 2016 to restore Harish Rawat), made the proclamation justiciable and recognised federalism as basic structure; Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) struck down the Bihar dissolution as mala fide; the Karnataka 1989 dismissal struck down in Bommai remains the anchor precedent.

Manipur 2025 episode: Prolonged ethnic violence and the Governor's report cited constitutional breakdown; opposition parties have framed federalism concerns; the Sarkaria Commission 1988 and Punchhi Commission 2010 had warned against routinisation, urging pre-imposition consultation under Article 355.

Way forward / Conclusion:

A pre-imposition warning under Article 355, mandatory floor test, time-bound restoration of the Assembly, and Inter-State Council scrutiny — the Punchhi Commission frame — are the durable corrections.