webdesign learners : President rule in Utter Pradesh

webdesign learners : President rule in Utter Pradesh: PRESIDENT'S RULE PRESIDENT'S RULE IN UTTAR PRADESH SL.NO. TENURE PERIOD FIRST TIME 25 FEBRUARY 1968 TO 26 ...

webdesign learners : President rule in Utter Pradesh

webdesign learners : President rule in Utter Pradesh: PRESIDENT'S RULE PRESIDENT'S RULE IN UTTAR PRADESH SL.NO. TENURE PERIOD FIRST TIME 25 FEBRUARY 1968 TO 26 ...

President rule in Utter Pradesh

PRESIDENT'S RULE

PRESIDENT'S RULE IN UTTAR PRADESH

SL.NO.	TENURE	PERIOD
FIRST TIME	25 FEBRUARY 1968 TO 26 FEBRUARY 1969 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SUSPENDED & DISSOLVED ON 15 APRIL 1968,	ONE YEAR & TWO DAYS
SECOND TIME	1 OCTOBER,1970 TO 18 OCTOBER, 1970 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SUSPENDED	EIGHTEEN DAYS
THIRD TIME	13 JUNE,1973 TO 8 NOVEMBER 1973 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SUSPENDED	FOUR MONTHS &TWENTY FIVE DAYS
FOURTH TIME	30 NOVEMBER, 1975 TO 21 JANUARY, 1976 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SUSPENDED	ONE MONTH &TWENTY TWO DAYS
FIFTH TIME	30 APRIL, 1977 TO 23 JUNE, 1977 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DISSOLVED	ONE MONTH &TWENTY FOUR DAYS
SIXTH TIME	17 FEBRUARY, 1980 TO 9 JUNE, 1980 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DISSOLVED	THREE MONTHS & TWENTY ONE DAYS
SEVENTH TIME	06 DECEMBER, 1992 TO 04 DECEMBER, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY DISSOLVED	ELEVEN MONTHS & TWENTY NINE DAYS
EIGHTH TIME	18 OCTOBER,1995 TO 17 OCTOBER, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SUSPENDED & DISSOLVED ON 27 OCTOBER 1995	ELEVEN MONTHS &TWENTY NINE DAYS
NINTH TIME	17 OCTOBER,1996 TO 21 MARCH 1997 (LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SUSPENDED)	FIVE MONTHS AND FOUR DAYS
TENTH TIME	08 MARCH 2002 TO 03 MAY 2002 (LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SUSPENDED)	ONE MONTH AND TWENTY FIVE DAYS

webdesign learners : What is the role of governor in president rule tim...

webdesign learners : What is the role of governor in president rule tim...: Under Article 356, the President can declare emergency in a state on receipt of a report from the Governor of the state or otherwise if he...

webdesign learners : What is the role of governor in president rule tim...

webdesign learners : What is the role of governor in president rule tim...: Under Article 356, the President can declare emergency in a state on receipt of a report from the Governor of the state or otherwise if he...

What is the role of governor in president rule time

Under Article 356, the President can declare emergency in a state on receipt of a report from the Governor of the state or otherwise if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

An important aspect of this Article is that emergency can be imposed on a state even without the Governor's report. H.S. Kathuria, in his book President's Rule in India, has given an excellent analysis of the factors that could lead to such an emergency. In brief, they are: (a) breakdown of law and order machinery, (b) political instability as a result of defections, (c) paralysis of the parliamentary process, as, for instance, when the Chief Minister does not resign, even after losing the majority, (d) corruption, maladministration, separatist activity and terrorism, (e) popular agitation against the ministry, (f) loss of public confidence in the majority, (g) a party with an absolute majority refusing to form the government and preventing the installation of a minority government, (h) no coalition government is set up, and (i) voluntary courting of it by a state to override a peculiar or particular problem.

Such an emergency can have the following effects: (a) the President can assume to himself all or any of the functions of the government of the state other than the High Court, (b) declare that the powers of the legislature of the state shall be exercisable by or under the authority of the Parliament, and (c) make provisions necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the proclamation.

Every such proclamation must be laid before each House of the Parliament and will cease to exist at the expiration of two months unless it has been approved by both chambers of the Parliament before this term expires.

If during these two months, the Lok Sabha is dissolved and the Rajya Sabha has approved it, then, the proclamation shall cease to operate on expiration of thirty days from the date on which the Lok Sabha first sits after its reconstitution, unless it is approved by the Lok Sabha before the expiration of this term.

A proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of issue of the proclamation. Unless revoked, its life can be extended by six months each, several times, but in no case beyond three years.

Article 356 is a corollary to Article 355. The latter imposes a duty on the Union to secure that the government of every state is carried on according to the provisions of the Constitution. The former gives the Union the power to ensure that Article 355 becomes effective and, in case of difficulty, to overcome it by imposing Article 356.

The Governor, while sending his report, has to use his own discretion and judgment. "By the very nature of the power, it cannot be exercised on the advice of the Ministry for; it may very often happen that the report may itself be a condemnation of the Chief Minister to the effect that the governments run by the Chief Minister is not being conducted .... In accordance with the Constitution". At the same time, he must act bona fide and must have materials to sustain his judgment that the government of the state can really not be carried out.

The Politicisation of Position: Recent Cases

In case we examine the hundred and more cases of the imposition of the President's Rule in states, a large number would appear to be controversial. In fact, discretion not backed by objectivity and rationality is bound to create controversies.

B.P.Singh, the former Governor of Goa, had gone to the extent of replacing the Chief Minister with another MLA by interpreting the 'pleasure' clause. This was an obvious misuse of the clause. The Central Government continues to flout the Sarkaria Commission's advice that active politicians should not be appointed as Governors.

The results are unsavoury. Governor Gulsher Ahmed of Himachal Pradesh quit from the office after a row over his involvement in an affair where he made his intentions clear that he wanted to return to active politics. And, more recently, former U.P. Governor, Moti Lai Vora had been accused of acting at the behest of his 'erstwhile' party's top leadership.

In October, 1995, when the BJP withdrew support from the minority BSP government in U.P., the Governor kept the State Assembly in suspended animation on the plea that the Supreme Court had ordered in the S.R. Bommai Case (when Rajiv Gandhi dismissed the Bommai Government in Karnataka) that a Governor should not dissolve the Assembly in without a proclamation to its effect being discussed and debated in the Parliament.

But he did exactly the opposite of his utterances after 12 days when he recommended the dissolution of the Assembly. This he neither did without providing any chance to any claimant to form the government nor was the matter discussed in the Parliament. This 'inconsistency' in the Governor's behaviour was criticised by constitutional experts such as P.P.Rao and Shanti Bhushan.

Is Governor an Agent of the Centre

There are a few articles in the Constitution which make the Governor an important link in the chain of relationship between the Union and the states. Article 160 says that the President may confer on Governor Functions in any contingency not provided in the Constitution. Under Article 200, the Governor can reserve a bill for the reconsideration of the President.

Under Article 356, emergency is proclaimed by the President Ori the basis of the Governor's report or otherwise. Article 167 puts an obligation on the Chief Minister to keep the Governor informed about the state affairs and the latter informs the President.

Article 257 provides that the executive power of the state shall be so exercised as not to prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union, meaning that the Governor should follow the advice and instructions of the President.

Keeping these Articles in mind, what exactly is the role of the Governor vis-a-vis the Centre? Has he merely to function as the 'good boy' of the Centre or can he exercise his own judgment and discretion? The seeds of the Problem are inherent in his method of appointment. He is nominated by the President. K.V.Rao says that it is this thing which is most obnoxious.

He says, "Today at the root of all troubles is the simple fact that the Head of the State is neither chosen by the State nor is he responsible to it, not removable by the very method of appointment and removal, the Governor becomes subordinate to the President and events prove that he cannot disobey him. Rao distinguishes between his role as a 'link' and that of an 'agent'. His role as a link is more positive than an agent. He "cannot be both these things at the same time. He should be neither a reflection of the state government but not its antithesis nor a spy of the Centre."

Leaving aside the discussion as to what an ideal situation should be, the post-1967 period shows that the Governor is today more an agent of the Centre than of the state. S.C. Dash has an interesting comment to make in this regard. He says, "A split personality is at times an encumbrance and a Governor is expected to display such a personality.

He can play the role of a Dr. Jekyll with the Union Government and Mr. Hyde with the State Council of Ministers and it would be difficult for either party to bring him to book".

Recommendations of the Governor's Committee on Appointment of Governor

On 30th November 1970, President V Giri appointed a committee of five Governors to study and report on the appointment of the Council of Ministers by the Governor, for summoning, prorogation and dissolution of State Legislature and the failure of constitutional machinery in a State. The Committee submitted its report on 26th November 1971.

The Committee expressed the view that the guideline could be provided and in each situation, the Governor concerned would have to take his own decision. The Committee was of the view that the Governor was not the agent of the President. As the Head of the State, the Governor has his functions as laid down in the Constitution itself and is in no sense an agent of the President.

Regarding the discretionary powers of the Governor, the Committee felt that under normal conditions the exercise of the Governor's powers should be on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and on occasions when the council of ministers loses the confidence of the House, the governor can act independently.

The committee also felt that the leader of the largest single party could not claim that he had an absolute right to form the Government.

Recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission

During the Nehru era, the institution of governor was free of any controversies. But it came into prominence after 1967, and has adopted different stands and practices in various states to suit the interest of the ruling party at the centre. The Commission observed that there was a widespread feeling that in some cases Governors were appointed on considerations extraneous to merit. The dignity of the office suffered when persons defeated in elections were appointed.

Recommendations on Appointment of Governor

(1) Governor should be eminent in some walk of life.

(2) Should be a person outside from the state

(4) Should be a person who has not taken too great a part in politics generally and particularly in the recent past.

The Commission felt that the State Government should be given prominence in appointing the Governor. The appointment should be made

(1) From a panel to be prepared by the State Legislature; or

(2) From a panel to be prepared by the State Government or invariably by the Chief Minister; or

(3) Invariably in consultation with the State Chief Minister.

The Commission felt that the Chief Minister should be consulted before appointing the Governor. For proper working of the Parliamentary system there has to be a personal rapport between the Governor and the Chief Minister.

Thus the main purpose of consulting the Chief Minister is to ascertain his objections, if any, to the proposed appointment.

The Commission found that consultation with the Chief Minister has not invariably been taking place in recent years.

The general practice, as far as the Commission has been able to ascertain, seems to be that the Union Government merely informs the Chief Minister that a certain person is being appointed as the Governor of the State. Sometimes even such prior intimation is not given.

The Commission recommended that the Vice President of India and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha should be consulted by the Prime Minister in selection of Governor. Such consultation, the Commission felt, will greatly enhance the credibility of the selection process.

Activist Governors

At the recent conference of Governors, both the President and the Prime Minister of India supported the call for "Activist Governors". It led to a serious discussion among the political thinkers about the role of Governor.

Can Governors be trusted to remain within the ambit of the Constitution? The Constituent Assembly had toyed with the idea of activating Governors by making the post a responsible activist institution.

But the idea of elected Governors was abandoned so that directly 'elected' Governors would not vie for prominence against indirectly selected Chief Ministers or Prime Ministers responsible to the Lok Sabha or Vidhan Sabha.

But except during the Nehru era, the Governor's office has become a political office. During Indira Gandhi era, many Governors ran amok-holding a Congress brief for the party in power in New Delhi rather than objectively discharging their constitutional powers and responsibilities.

The Bhagwat Sahya Committee (1971) sustained this charge; and, the Sarkaria Committee (1988) openly stated that "the role of the Governor has emerged as one of the key issues in Union-State relations". Unfortunately none of the recommendations of the Sarkaria report on Governor has been followed. An important recommendation was that the people from the party in power should not be appointed to the office of Governor.

The Constitution Review Commission also recommended the same. But it was not put into practice by any of the Central Governments that ruled the country over the past 60 years.

What is needed is more neutral, less political and in that context less-activist Governors. This constitutional post requires greater scrutiny and oversight over it. Since the Governor is appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister, such posts should be within the scrutiny of Parliament. Appointments should be made after due consultation of a parliamentary committee which should exercise oversight over the post.

Conclusion

Several questions and problems arise regarding the role of the Governor in state politics. They will continue to haunt us. It would be wrong to blame the Constitution-makers in this regard as they could not have visualized all the problems that would arise. Each Article relating to him may give rise to new controversies but, to understand his position, we must look at the Constitution as an organic whole. This, and several conventions, which have emerged, makes the smooth running of the government possible.

The Governor certainly does not have much to do, but that is because the Constitution-makers intended it that way. He is not supposed to run a parallel government in the state. His role is that of a sagacious counselor, mediator and arbitrator rather than an active politician. He has to abide by the advice of the council of ministers but that does not means immediate acceptance. He can reserve bills for reconsideration and prevent hasty decisions.

Great caution and restraint must be exercised while reporting to the President under Article 356. Otherwise, his image as the guardian of the state would get tarnished. He should keep himself away from active politics. An active politician, who was identified himself with a political party, cannot inspire the total trust of the people.

The recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission in this respect deserve serious consideration. Lastly, critics of the institution should realise that, in a parliamentary democracy, it is a necessity. Slowly, it is emerging from slumber and some Governors have taken up cudgels on behalf of the states at the risk of losing their jobs. Hence, "it would be a gross fallacy to regard the institution of the Governor as a faint presence like a full moon at midday.

webdesign learners : Article 356 in The Constitution Of India 1949

webdesign learners : Article 356 in The Constitution Of India 1949: Article 356 in The Constitution Of India 1949 356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State (1)  If the Presi...

Article 356 in The Constitution Of India 1949

Article 356 in The Constitution Of India 1949

356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State

(1) If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with he provisions of this Constitution, the President may be Proclamation

(a) assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State;

(b) declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;

(c) make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the president to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this constitution relating to any body or authority in the State Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorise the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to High Courts

(2) Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation

(3) Every Proclamation issued under this article except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation Shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People

(4) A Proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of issue of the Proclamation: Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a Proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of six months from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to operating, but no such Proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than three years: Provided further that if the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during any such period of six months and a resolution approving the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People during the said period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the continuance in force of the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause ( 4 ), a resolution with respect to the continuance in force of a Proclamation approved under clause ( 3 ) for any period beyond the expiration of one year from the date of issue of such proclamation shall not be passed by either House of Parliament unless

(a) a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, in the whole of India or, as the case may be, in the whole or any part of the State, at the time of the passing of such resolution, and

(b) the Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of the Proclamation approved under clause ( 3 ) during the period specified in such resolution is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned: Provided that in the case of the Proclamation issued under clause ( 1 ) on the 6 th day of October, 1985 with respect to the State of Punjab, the reference in this clause to any period beyond the expiration of two years

webdesign learners : List of President Rules in India

webdesign learners : List of President Rules in India: Instances of President's Rule [ edit ] Indian State Date From Date To Reasons & Comments Andhra State 15 Nov 1954 29 Mar 1955 ...

List of President Rules in India

Instances of President's Rule[edit]

Indian State	Date From	Date To	Reasons & Comments
Andhra State	15 Nov 1954	29 Mar 1955	Loss of Majority.
Andhra Pradesh	11 Jan 1973	10 Dec 1973	Break down of Law & Order due to Jai Andhra Agitation, in P. V. Narasimha Rao's tenure.
Andhra Pradesh	28 Feb 2014	-	Political Deadlock following the resignation of Chief Minister Kiran Kumar Reddy and several others, both from the Government and the Party after the Indian Parliament passed Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Bill meant to carve out a separateTelangana State.[1]
Arunachal Pradesh	3 Nov 1979	18 Jan 1980	Loss of Majority following defections in a fluid political environment during Janata party rule at the Centre.
Assam	12 Dec 1979	5 Dec 1980	'Assam Agitation' against illegal foreign national staying in Assam started to take roots under the leadership of the All Assam Students’Union (AASU). The violence fuelled by United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) resulted in break down of law and order.
Assam	30 Jun 1981	13 Jan 1982	Congress (I) government led by Anwara Taimur representing immigrant minorities collapsed following intensification of 'Assam Agitation' against illegal foreign national staying in Assam.
Assam	19 Mar 1982	27 Feb 1983	Congress (I) government led by Kesab Gogoi representing ethnic Asom people collapsed following continued violence in Assam.
Assam	28 Nov 1990	30 Jun 1991	Govt. dismissed in spite of AGP CM Mr. Prafulla Mahanta enjoying majority support in Assembly. The dismissal was triggered apparently by the threat to internal security due to banned organisation ULFA's activities. During President's rule, Operation Bajrang was launched to flush out ULFA militants.
Bihar	29 Jun 1968	26 Feb 1969	Loss of Majority following defections in a fluid political environment.
Bihar	4 Jul 1969	16 Feb 1970	Loss of Majority following defections in a fluid political environment due to split in ruling Congress party
Bihar	9 Jan 1972	19 Mar 1972	Loss of Majority following defections in a fluid political environment.
Bihar	30 Apr 1977	24 Jun 1977	Government dismissed in spite of Dr. Jagannath Mishra enjoying majority support in Assembly
Bihar	17 Feb 1980	8 Jun 1980	Government dismissed in spite of Mr. Ram Sundar Das enjoying majority support in Assembly
Bihar	28 Mar 1995	5 Apr 1995	President’s rule imposed for a brief period of one week to facilitate passage of vote on account (to permit day to day government expenses in Bihar) by Parliament while awaiting the results of Assembly elections held during the Chief Ministership of Mr Laloo Prasad.
Bihar	12 Feb 1999	9 Mar 1999	Breakdown of law and order, killings of 11 Dalits at Narayanpur. The Vajpayee Government, revoked President’s rule within 26 days since the coalition did not have a majority in the Rajya Sabha.
Bihar	7 Mar 2005	24 Nov 2005	Indecisive outcome of elections.
Delhi	17 Feb 2014	Ongoing	Resignation of Aam Aadmi Party led Government and no party or coalition came forward with required majority to form Government.[2]
Goa	2 Dec 1966	5 Apr 1967	The Union Territory of Goa's Assembly was dissolved to conduct an opinion poll to determine whether Goa should be merged with Maharashtra.
Goa	27 Apr 1979	16 Jan 1980	Loss of majority following split in the ruling MGP Party
Goa	14 Dec 1990	25 Jan 1991	C.M. resigned consequent upon his disqualification by High Court - No other Government found viable
Goa	9 Feb 1999	9 Jun 1999	Loss of majority and no alternate claimant to form next government
Goa	4 Mar 2005	7 Jun 2005	Government dismissed after controversial confidence vote secured in the Assembly by CM Pratap Sinh Rane
Gujarat	12 May 1971	17 Mar 1972	Loss of Majority following vertical split in Congress during 1969 presidential election
Gujarat	9 Feb 1974	18 Jun 1975	Chimanbhai Patel led Congress government resigned due to Navnirman Movement Anti-Corruption protests. The protesters forced MLA's resignations, forcing dissolution of assembly.
Gujarat	12 Mar 1976	24 Dec 1976	"Non-Passage" of budget leading to collapse of government
Gujarat	17 Feb 1980	8 Jun 1980	Government dismissed in spite of Babubhai J Patel enjoying majority support in the Assembly
Gujarat	19 Sep 1996	23 Oct 1996	Government dismissed following a controversial confidence vote. The Assembly was placed in suspended animation, which led to subsequent installation of Vaghela government, supported by Congress
Haryana	2 Nov 1967	22 May 1968	Government dismissed in spite of having a tenuous majority.
Haryana	30 Apr 1977	21 Jun 1977	Government dismissed in spite of B D Gupta enjoying majority support in Assembly
Haryana	6 Apr 1991	23 Jul 1991	Rebellion in the ruling party
Himachal Pradesh	30 Apr 1977	22 Jun 1977	Government dismissed in spite of Thakur Ram Lal enjoying majority support in Assembly
Himachal Pradesh	15 Dec 1992	3 Dec 1993	Government dismissed in the aftermath of the destruction of Babri Masjid-Ram Janmasthan in Uttar Pradesh.
Jammu and Kashmir	26 Mar 1977	9 Jul 1977	Sheikh Abdullah led National Conference government bowed out after being reduced to a minority following withdrawal of support by the Congress Party
Jammu and Kashmir	6 Mar 1986	7 Nov 1986	Loss of majority
Jammu and Kashmir	19 Jan 1990	9 Oct 1996	Insurgency and break down of law and order.
Jammu and Kashmir	18 Oct 2002	2 Nov 2002	Indecisive outcome of elections.
Jammu and Kashmir	11 Jul 2008	5 Jan 2009	Loss of majority following collapse of coalition. CM Gulam Nabi Azad's decision to transfer land for Amarnath pilgrimage led to PDP pulling out of coalation Govt.
Jharkhand	19 Jan 2009	29 Dec 2009	Loss of Majority
Jharkhand	1 Jun 2010	11 Sep 2010	Loss of Majority
Jharkhand	18 Jan 2013	12 July 2013	Loss of Majority. BJP's ruling coalition partner JMM withdrew its support to the government pushing it into a minority. Chief Minister Arjun Munda resigned and sought dissolution of the state Assembly.[3]
Karnataka	19 Mar 1971	20 Mar 1972	Loss of Majority
Karnataka	31 Dec 1977	28 Feb 1978	Government dismissed in spite of Congress CM Devraj Urs enjoying majority support in Assembly
Karnataka	21 Apr 1989	30 Nov 1989	Loss of majority of CM S. R. Bommai, followed by dissolution of Assembly. On an appeal by Mr. S. R. Bommai, in a landmark judgement delivered in 1994, the Indian Supreme Court laid out the procedure to be followed before dissolving an elected assembly. The historic ruling in this case reduced the scope for misuse of Article 356 by future central governments and governors.
Karnataka	10 Oct 1990	17 Oct 1990	Government of Veerendra Patil dismissed by Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and state was placed under President's rule with the assembly placed in suspended animation until next chief Minister was elected
Karnataka	9 Oct 2007	11 Nov 2007	Loss of majority
Karnataka	20 Nov 2007	27 May 2008	Loss of majority
Kerala (Travancore-Cochin)	23 Mar 1956	5 Apr 1957	Loss of majority following split in Congress Party
Kerala	31 Jul 1959	22 Feb 1960	Government dismissed in spite of Communist CM EMS Namboodiripad enjoying majority support in Assembly
Kerala	10 Sep 1964	6 Mar 1967	Loss of majority followed by indecisive outcome of elections
Kerala	1 Aug 1970	4 Oct 1970	Loss of majority
Kerala	1 Dec 1979	25 Jan 1980	Loss of majority
Madhya Pradesh	29 Apr 1977	25 Jun 1977	Government dismissed in spite of Shyama Charan Shukla enjoying majority support in Assembly
Madhya Pradesh	18 Feb 1980	8 Jun 1980	Govt. dismissed in spite of Mr. Sundar Lal Patwa enjoying majority support in Assembly
Madhya Pradesh	15 Dec 1992	7 Dec 1993	Govt. dismissed in the aftermath of Babri Masjid-Ram Janmasthan destruction in Uttar Pradesh.
Maharashtra	17 Feb 1980	8 Jun 1980	Govt. dismissed in spite of Mr. Sharad Pawar enjoying majority support in the Assembly
Manipur	12 Jan 1967	19 Mar 1967	First Elections to Manipur Union Territory Assembly held.
Manipur	25 Oct 1967	18 Feb 1968	Short lived ministry collapsed following resignation of speaker, resulting in neither ruling nor opposition congress having a clear majority in the assembly. Assembly kept in suspended animation.
Manipur	17 Oct 1969	22 Mar 1972	Violent secessionist insurgency and statehood demands resulted in breakdown of law and order
Manipur	28 Mar 1973	3 Mar 1974	President's rule was imposed even though the opposition had a "tenuous" majority and could have formed a government
Manipur	16 May 1977	28 Jun 1977	Collapse of Government following defections
Manipur	14 Nov 1979	13 Jan 1980	Discontent within Janata Party Government and corruption charges led to dismissal of government and dissolution of Assembly.
Manipur	28 Feb 1981	18 Jun 1981	Incumbent Government fell following defections. Governor did not permit an alternate government to be formed by People's Democratic Front on the basis of his assessment regarding stability of the proposed ministry.
Manipur	7 Jan 1992	7 Apr 1992	Incumbent coalition Government fell following defections. President's rule imposed keeping assembly in suspension.
Manipur	31 Dec 1993	13 Dec 1994	1000 persons died in Naga-Kuki clashes and continued violence
Manipur	2 Jun 2001	6 Mar 2002	Loss of majority
Meghalaya	11 Oct 1991	5 Feb 1992	The Centre imposed President's Rule in Meghalaya in the wake of a political crisis after the then Speaker PR Kyndiah suspended five MLAs, mostly independents, on grounds of defection. See more at:http://www.merinews.com/article/meghalaya-clamped-under-presidents-rule/15752671.shtml#sthash.lD2Rcimi.dpuf
Meghalaya	18 Mar 2009	12 May 2009	Government dismissed after controversial confidence vote secured in the Assembly by CM Donkupar Roy
Mizoram	11 May 1977	1 Jun 1978	Mizo Union Ministry led by Chief Minister Chhunga resigned in May 1977, ostensibly to facilitate the progress of peace talks. see Lost Opportunities: 50 Years of Insurgency in the North-east and India's Response, By S. P. Sinha, Page 95
Mizoram	10 Nov 1978	8 May 1979	Chief Minister Sailo's refusal to grant undue favours caused dissension in his party which led to the fall of his government and imposition of President's rule. see Lost Opportunities: 50 Years of Insurgency in the North-east and India's Response, By S. P. Sinha, Page 96-97
Mizoram	7 Sep 1988	24 Jan 1989	Defections reduced the Government to minority
Nagaland	20 Mar 1975	25 Nov 1977	Defections and counter defections led to imposition of President's rule
Nagaland	7 Aug 1988	25 Jan 1989	The state was under a brief spell of central rule again after the Hokishe Sema-led Congress government was reduced to a minority. The decision was challenged in the Supreme Court in held to be invalid in 1994.
Nagaland	2 Apr 1992	22 Feb 1993	Fluid party position and deteriorating law and order situation
Nagaland	3 Jan 2008	12 Mar 2008	Government dismissed after controversial confidence vote secured in the Assembly by CM Neiphiu Rio
Odisha	25 Feb 1961	23 Jun 1961	Dr. Harekrushna Mahtab led Congress-Gantantra Parishad Minority Government resigned on the 21st February, 1961 due to differences in the Congress Party. President’s Rule was imposed on 25 February 1961.
Odisha	11 Jan 1971	3 Apr 1971	Break-up of coalition
Odisha	3 Mar 1973	6 Mar 1974	Facing imminent collapse of government, incumbent chief minister recommended dissolution of assembly and fresh elections.
Odisha	16 Dec 1976	29 Dec 1976	Chief Minister Nandini Sathpathy was forced out and assembly placed under suspended animation. A new Congress government was sworn in after revocation of President's Rule.
Odisha	30 Apr 1977	26 Jun 1977	Government dismissed in spite of Binayak Acharya enjoying majority support in Assembly
Odisha	17 Feb 1980	9 Jun 1980	Government dismissed in spite of Nilamani Routray enjoying majority support in Assembly
PEPSU	5 Mar 1953	8 Mar 1954	President's rule was invoked in the erstwhile PEPSU (Patiala and East Punjab States Union ) State when the Akali Dal government, led by Gian Singh Rarewala, was dismissed
Puducherry	18 Sep 1968	17 Mar 1969	Assembly was dissolved and President's rule imposed as opposition parties had a chance to form a government after the fall of the Congress government.
Puducherry	3 Jan 1974	6 Mar 1974	Assembly dissolved after fall of DMK government following decision of two ministers to join newly formed ADMK.
Puducherry	28 Mar 1974	2 Jul 1977	Fall of coalition government of ADMK, Congress(O)following division of votes by Congress(R) and DMK. The Assembly was dissolved.
Puducherry	12 Nov 1978	16 Jan 1980
Puducherry	24 Jun 1983	16 Mar 1985	Government dismissed following withdrawal of Congress(I) from coalition government. In spite of incumbent chief minister asking for an opportunity to prove his majority on the floor of the house, the assembly was dissolved.
Puducherry	4 Mar 1991	3 Jul 1991	DMK Government dismissed in spite of having a majority in the Assembly
Punjab	20 Jun 1951	17 Apr 1952	Pandit Nehru kept the Punjab Assembly in suspension for nine months and 28 days to help the state Congress government get its act together.
Punjab	5 Jul 1966	1 Nov 1966	State administration was taken over, ostensibly to facilitate bifurcation of Punjab state into two, Punjab and Haryana
Punjab	23 Aug 1968	17 Feb 1969	Break-up of coalition
Punjab	14 Jun 1971	17 Mar 1972	Following poor performance in March, 1971 Lok Sabha Elections, incumbent Chief Minister advised dissolving state assembly and holding fresh elections to state legislature.
Punjab	30 Apr 1977	20 Jun 1977	Government dismissed in spite of Giani Zail Singh enjoying majority support in Assembly
Punjab	17 Feb 1980	6 Jun 1980	Government dismissed in spite of Parkash Singh Badal enjoying majority support in Assembly
Punjab	10 Oct 1983	29 Sep 1985	Insurgency and breakdown of law and order
Punjab	11 Jun 1987	25 Feb 1992	Insurgency and breakdown of law and order
Rajasthan	13 Mar 1967	26 Apr 1967	Indecisive outcome of elections
Rajasthan	29 Apr 1977	22 Jun 1977	Government dismissed in spite of Hari Dev Joshi enjoying majority support in Assembly
Rajasthan	16 Feb 1980	6 Jun 1980	Government dismissed in spite of Bhairon Singh Shekhawat enjoying majority support in Assembly
Rajasthan	15 Dec 1992	4 Dec 1993	Government dismissed in spite of Bhairon Singh Shekhawat enjoying majority support in Assembly
Sikkim	18 Aug 1978	18 Oct 1979	Loss of majority following split in Mr. Kazi Lhendup Dorji led Janata Party government. The central government imposed president's rule and followed up with electoral reforms before ordering fresh elections.
Sikkim	25 May 1984	8 Mar 1985	Congress Government formed following induced collapse of Mr. Nar Bahadur Bandari Sikkim Janata Parishad Government was dismissed as it did not enjoy a majority in the Assembly.
Tamil Nadu	31 Jan 1976	30 Jun 1977	Government dismissed in spite of Karunanidhi enjoying majority support in Assembly
Tamil Nadu	17 Feb 1980	6 Jun 1980	Government dismissed in spite of M G Ramachandran enjoying majority support in Assembly
Tamil Nadu	30 Jan 1988	27 Jan 1989	Government dismissed after controversial confidence vote secured in the Assembly by CM Janaki Ramachandran
Tamil Nadu	30 Jan 1991	24 Jun 1991	Government headed by Mr. M. Karunanidhi dismissed by Prime Minister Chandrashekhar on charges of supporting anti-national activities, in spite of the then Governor Barnala's report and enjoying majority support in the Assembly.
Tripura	1 Nov 1971	20 Mar 1972	In the backdrop of refugee influx due to Bangladesh Liberation War, split in the Congress and Communist agitation for Tripura to become a full fledged state, President's rule was imposed. On 1 January 1972 Tripura became a State and assembly elections held subsequently.
Tripura	5 Nov 1977	5 Jan 1978
Tripura	11 Mar 1993	10 Apr 1993	Elections postponed from 15 Feb 1993 to 3 Apr 1993 on account of deteriorating law and order situation. Caretaker CM resigns.
Uttar Pradesh	25 Feb 1968	26 Feb 1969	Loss of majority following withdrawal of support by Corgress (R) led by Ms. Indira Gandhi.
Uttar Pradesh	1 Oct 1970	18 Oct 1970	Charan Singh Ministry supported by Congress collapsed following split in Congress party.
Uttar Pradesh	12 Jun 1973	8 Nov 1973	Chief Minister resigned as a result of the 1973 Provincial Armed Constabulary revolt.
Uttar Pradesh	30 Nov 1975	21 Jan 1976	Congress Government of H N Bahuguna tendered resignation due to infighting within the party.
Uttar Pradesh	30 Apr 1977	23 Jun 1977	Government dismissed in spite of N D Tiwari enjoying majority support in Assembly
Uttar Pradesh	17 Feb 1980	9 Jun 1980	Government dismissed in spite of Banarasi Das enjoying majority support in Assembly
Uttar Pradesh	6 Dec 1992	4 Dec 1993	Government dismissed in the aftermath of the destruction of Babri Masjid-Ram Janmasthan
Uttar Pradesh	18 Oct 1995	21 Mar 1997	Loss of Majority following collapse of coaltion
Uttar Pradesh	8 Mar 2002	2 May 2002	Indecisive outcome of elections.
Vindhya Pradesh	8 Apr 1949	13 Mar 1952	President's rule was imposed in the erstwhile Vindya Pradesh State when Chief Minister resigned. President's Rule was revoked following independent India's first general elections.
West Bengal	1 Jul 1962	8 Jul 1962	Interim Period between death of incumbent Chief Minister and election of new leader.
West Bengal	20 Feb 1968	25 Feb 1969	State placed under President's rule following collapse of two successive short lived coalition governments.
West Bengal	19 Mar 1970	2 Apr 1971	Collapse of United Front Coalition between Bangla Congress and CPI(M)
West Bengal	28 Jun 1971	19 Mar 1972	Collapse of United Front Coalition between Bangla Congress and CPI(M)