The Union's duty and directions: Arts. 355 and 365

Detail

1. Art. 355: what the text says

• Duty of the Union to protect states (Art. 355): the Union has a constitutional duty to do two things:
• protect every state against external aggression (attack or invasion from outside India) and internal disturbance (serious disorder inside the country, such as riots or armed revolt);

• make sure that the government of every state is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution [2].

• Where it sits: Art. 355 is in Part XVIII, between the national emergency (Art. 352) and President's rule (Art. 356). President's rule means the Union takes over a state's government when it cannot be run under the Constitution [2].

• "Internal disturbance" survives only here.
• The 44th Amendment (1978) replaced "internal disturbance" with "armed rebellion" in Art. 352. It did this after the 1975 Emergency had been declared on the ground of "internal disturbance".
• Art. 355 was not changed. So the wider phrase still applies to the Union's duty, but not to declaring a national emergency.

2. Origin: draft Art. 277A

• Draft Art. 277A was not in the Draft Constitution of 1948. Ambedkar, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, moved it on 3 August 1949 [2].
• Purpose: if the Centre steps into a state's area during an emergency, that step should come from a duty written in the Constitution. It should not be "arbitrary or wanton" [2].
• Debate: one member said "internal disturbance" was too vague. The member wanted the narrower words "internal insurrection or chaos" so that the Union could not interfere for any reason it liked [2].
• Result: the Assembly rejected every amendment and adopted the draft article unchanged on 4 August 1949 [2].

3. Art. 355 as both a duty and a power

• A duty: the Union must act when a state faces external aggression or internal disturbance.
• A power: the duty also justifies Union action that stops short of Art. 356. This is a step-by-step ("graded") response:

Step	Tool	Effect on the state government
1	Advisories from the Ministry of Home Affairs	State stays fully in charge
2	Central teams sent to study the situation	State stays in charge; Union is watching closely
3	Deployment of armed forces or central forces "in aid of the civil power" (helping the state's police and officials)	State government continues, but Union forces are on the ground
4	Art. 356 President's rule (last resort)	State government dismissed; the assembly is suspended or dissolved

• Legal basis for deploying forces:
• Union List, Entry 2A (Seventh Schedule), inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1976). It covers deploying any armed force or other force of the Union in any state in aid of the civil power, and the powers and liabilities of those forces [8].
• The 42nd Amendment also inserted Art. 257A. It let the Union deploy forces to handle serious law-and-order problems in a state. Those forces would take orders from the Union, not from the state [3].

• Art. 257A was inserted with effect from 3 January 1977. The 44th Amendment (1978) omitted it with effect from 20 June 1979 [3]. Entry 2A stayed in the Union List.

• Sarkaria Commission (1988): its chapter on emergency provisions, Chapter XVIII, reviewed these powers [2].

• Sarkaria accepted that the Union may deploy its forces without a request from the state.

• It advised the Union to consult the state first wherever possible.

• Punchhi Commission (Commission on Centre-State Relations, set up 2005): its terms of reference included whether supporting legislation under Art. 355 was possible for suo motu deployment of central forces in states. Suo motu deployment means the Union sends forces on its own decision, without a state's request [7].

4. Case law on Art. 355

• Naga People's Movement of Human Rights v. Union of India (1998):
• Holding: a Constitution Bench upheld the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, 1958 (AFSPA).
• Reasoning: Parliament can make such a law under Entry 2A, and the Union has a duty under Art. 355 to protect states.
• Limit: deploying forces under the Act does not take over the state government. The civil government keeps working alongside the forces.

• AFSPA itself is studied under Regional Aspirations.

• Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India (2005):

• Holding: the Supreme Court struck down the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act, 1983 (IMDT Act).
• Reasoning: large-scale illegal migration into Assam amounted to "external aggression" and "internal disturbance". The IMDT Act made it very hard to detect and deport illegal migrants, so the Union had failed its Art. 355 duty.

• The case is studied in detail under Citizenship.

• Lesson from both cases: courts read Art. 355 as an active duty. It can support Union laws and Union action. It can also be used to measure whether the Union has done enough.

5. Recent example: Manipur (2023–25)

• Graded response in practice:
• May 2023 onwards: ethnic violence broke out in Manipur. The Union first used tools short of Art. 356, such as sending large numbers of central forces and holding security reviews, while the state government stayed in office.
• 13 February 2025: after most members said they could not form a government, the Union Cabinet recommended President's rule and the President issued a proclamation under Art. 356(1) [5][6].
• Approval: both Houses of Parliament passed statutory resolutions approving the proclamation. The Union Home Minister moved the resolution in the Rajya Sabha [5][6].
• Governor: Ajay Kumar Bhalla, a former Union Home Secretary, was appointed Governor of Manipur [6].

• Extension: Parliament approved a further six months from 13 August 2025 under Art. 356(4) [6]. Check the current status for the period after February 2026.

• Exam point: Manipur shows Art. 355 as the step before Art. 356. The Union first acts to protect the state, and takes over the state's government only after the political process breaks down.

• Post-poll violence claims: after elections in some states, opposition parties have sometimes demanded central action under Art. 355. Such a demand usually leads to advisories or central teams, not to Art. 356.

6. Art. 365: failure to comply with Union directions

• Failure to comply with Union directions (Art. 365):
• Rule: a state may fail to comply with, or give effect to, directions the Union gives "in the exercise of the executive power of the Union under any of the provisions of this Constitution".

• Consequence: the President may then hold that a situation has arisen in which the state's government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution [4].

• Where it sits: Part XIX (Miscellaneous), not Part XVIII [4]. It works as a gateway to Art. 356.

• Chain of steps:
• The Union gives a lawful direction to a state.
• The state ignores it or refuses to follow it.
• The President may treat this as a constitutional breakdown (Art. 365).

• President's rule may then be proclaimed (Art. 356), followed by approval by Parliament and judicial review under the S.R. Bommai (1994) principles. Judicial review means the courts can check whether the action was lawful.

• Provisions under which the Union can give directions:

Article	Direction power
Art. 256	States must use their executive power so that laws made by Parliament are obeyed. The Union may give directions for this [8].
Art. 257	States must not obstruct the Union's executive power. The Union may direct states to build and maintain means of communication of military importance and to protect railways [8].
Art. 339(2)	Directions on schemes for the welfare of Scheduled Tribes in a state [8].
Art. 353	During a national emergency, the Union's executive power extends to giving directions to any state on how to use its executive power [8].
Art. 360	During a financial emergency, directions to follow financial propriety, including cutting salaries of state officials [8].

• Built-in limit: the words are "it shall be lawful". This gives the President a choice, not a duty. The direction must also be a valid one under the Constitution. Under Bommai, the courts can examine the material behind the President's decision.

7. Exercise scenario: a state defies the Supreme Court in a water dispute

• The situation: a state refuses to obey a Supreme Court order to release river water to a neighbouring state. The Cauvery dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is the real-life background.
• Main remedy: the courts, not Art. 356.
• Art. 144: all civil and judicial authorities in India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court [8].
• Art. 129: the Supreme Court is a court of record (its judgments are permanent records with the force of law) and can punish for contempt of itself [8]. Contempt means disobeying or showing disrespect to a court.

• So defiance is first a matter of enforcing the order and contempt proceedings.

• Why Art. 365 or 356 does not fit easily:

• Art. 365 is about directions from the Union executive. It does not cover court orders.
• Using Art. 356 would need a genuine breakdown of constitutional government. Political disagreement or protest is not enough.
• After S.R. Bommai (1994), such a proclamation would face judicial review for mala fides (bad faith) and for whether it was based on relevant material.

Prelims Hooks

• Art. 355 places a duty on the Union to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure government according to the Constitution. "Internal disturbance" was removed from Art. 352 by the 44th Amendment (1978) but remains in Art. 355.
• Art. 355 came from draft Art. 277A, moved by Ambedkar on 3 August 1949 and adopted unchanged on 4 August 1949 [2].
• Union List Entry 2A covers deploying Union forces in aid of the civil power. It was inserted by the 42nd Amendment (1976) and still exists.
• Art. 257A came in through the 42nd Amendment (1976) and was omitted by the 44th Amendment (1978) [3]. Trap: Entry 2A survived the 44th Amendment, but Art. 257A did not.
• Art. 365 is in Part XIX, not Part XVIII [4].
• NPMHR (1998) upheld AFSPA, 1958, relying on the Art. 355 duty and Entry 2A.
• Sarbananda Sonowal (2005) struck down the IMDT Act, 1983, and called illegal migration into Assam "external aggression".
• Directions whose breach can trigger Art. 365: Arts. 256, 257, 339(2), 353, 360.
• Manipur: President's rule was proclaimed on 13 February 2025 under Art. 356(1) and extended from 13 August 2025 under Art. 356(4) [5][6].
• The Supreme Court's power to punish for its own contempt is in Art. 129. The duty of all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court is in Art. 144.

Mains Points

• Shield or sword? Art. 355 lets the Union respond in steps (advisories, then central teams, then forces) and so avoid going straight to Art. 356. This fits the federal spirit of Bommai. Critics say the vague phrase "internal disturbance", which the Constituent Assembly refused to narrow [2], lets the Union step into state matters such as police and public order, which are State List subjects.
• Deploying forces without the state's consent: Entry 2A and Sarkaria's acceptance give the Union legal power to send forces on its own. Sarkaria's advice to consult the state, and the Punchhi Commission's study of a supporting law under Art. 355 [7], show the need for clear rules. Such rules would reduce friction between the Centre and states.
• Art. 365 as a route to Art. 356: if the Union could treat any ignored direction as a breakdown, it could pressure states controlled by other parties. Safeguards should include written warnings, a chance for the state to explain, and judicial review under Bommai. Defiance of court orders, as in the Cauvery-type disputes, should be handled through Arts. 129 and 144, not President's rule.
• Manipur (2023–25) as a test: a long period of violence before Art. 356 was used raises a question. Did the Union act in time, as Sarbananda Sonowal (2005) says Art. 355 requires? Or was its restraint the correct federal choice?