Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows for the imposition of President's Rule in a state, is a contentious provision. While it's intended as a safeguard against the failure of constitutional machinery in a state, it has often been criticized as a tool for political subversion and has been misused for partisan gains, according to legal affairs documents.

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows for the imposition of President's Rule in a state, is a subject of ongoing debate regarding its potential for abuse versus its necessity as a safeguard. While proponents argue it's a crucial tool to prevent constitutional breakdown and maintain national unity, critics contend it's often misused for political purposes, undermining federalism.
Here's a breakdown of the arguments:
Arguments for Article 356 as a safeguard:
Preventing constitutional breakdown:
Article 356 is intended to be invoked when a state government is unable to function according to the Constitution, potentially leading to chaos or instability.
Maintaining national unity:
In situations where a state government is actively working against the interests of the nation, Article 356 can be used to restore order and ensure national unity.
Last resort:
Ideally, Article 356 should be used as a last resort when all other options have been exhausted, according to the Sarkaria Commission's recommendation and judicial interpretations.
Arguments against Article 356 as a tool of federal subversion:
Political misuse:
Critics argue that Article 356 has been frequently used by the central government to dismiss state governments, often for political reasons rather than genuine constitutional crises.
Undermining federalism:
The frequent imposition of President's Rule can be seen as a way for the central government to overrule state governments and undermine the federal structure of the country.
Lack of clarity:
The definition of "failure of constitutional machinery" is open to interpretation, which can lead to arbitrary and subjective decisions regarding the invocation of Article 356.
Judicial review limitations:
While judicial review exists, the Supreme Court has acknowledged the "federal bias" in the Constitution and the limitations on its ability to fully scrutinize the President's actions, according to The Hindu.

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the President to impose President’s Rule in a state in case of a failure of constitutional machinery, has long been debated as either a tool of federal subversion or a necessary safeguard. While its intent is to protect the Constitution and ensure governance in exceptional situations, its frequent misuse—especially during the 1970s and 1980s—for political gains by the Union government has raised serious concerns about federal overreach.

The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) judgment placed significant checks on its use by subjecting presidential proclamations to judicial review, thereby strengthening the federal structure. Although Article 356 remains a necessary constitutional provision to address genuine breakdowns of law and order, its past misuse makes it susceptible to criticism as a tool for undermining state autonomy. In essence, it is a double-edged sword—its legitimacy depends entirely on its restrained and lawful application.