135 Times of President’s Rule: Why Two-Thirds of the Time New Parties Took Power

New Delhi, September 21, 2025 –
India has seen President’s Rule used 135 times since Independence. A new analysis shows a striking pattern: in about two out of every three cases, the party that was ruling before did not come back to power once President’s Rule ended. Instead, a different party or coalition took charge. This trend shows how strongly President’s Rule shapes state politics in India.

What President’s Rule Means

President’s Rule happens under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. It is a special provision. If the state government cannot function according to constitutional norms, the central government takes control. The governor runs the administration on behalf of the President of India.

This can happen when:

• No party can prove majority in the assembly.
• The ruling government collapses due to defections or resignations.
• Law and order breaks down.
• Elections cannot be held on time.

President’s Rule is meant to be temporary. But history shows that it often lasts for months, and sometimes even years. When it ends, elections usually follow. And in many cases, the voters punish the party that was in power before the crisis.

The Numbers Tell the Story

The analysis looked at all cases of President’s Rule since 1953. The key findings are:

• 135 times President’s Rule has been imposed in India.
• In 87 cases, the party in power before the Rule did not return.
• In 69 of those cases, fresh elections were held right after the Rule.
• In only about one-third of the cases, the same party was able to come back.

This shows a clear pattern. When a state faces President’s Rule, it is more likely than not that the voters will choose a different party next time.

Which States Faced It the Most

Some states have faced President’s Rule more often than others.

• Manipur tops the list with 11 times.
• Uttar Pradesh comes next with 10 times.
• Punjab has seen seven changes of government after President’s Rule.

In terms of total days under President’s Rule:

• Jammu & Kashmir leads.
• Punjab is second.

This shows that political instability has been common in some states, especially those with coalition politics or separatist movements.

Examples From the States

Kerala, 1957–1959
Kerala was the first state where a non-Congress government came to power. The Communist government of E.M.S. Namboodiripad was dismissed in 1959. President’s Rule followed. When elections were held again, the Congress returned. This showed early on how President’s Rule could reshape state politics.

Punjab, 1980s–1990s
Punjab saw long spells of President’s Rule due to militancy and political instability. After these periods, power often shifted between the Congress and the Shiromani Akali Dal. The voters used elections after President’s Rule to send a strong message.

Manipur, multiple times
Manipur’s frequent use of President’s Rule shows the fragility of coalition governments. In several cases, defections brought down governments. After the Rule ended, a different party or alliance usually gained power. This has happened to both the Congress and regional parties.

Why a New Party Often Wins

There are many reasons why voters often reject the ruling party after President’s Rule:

1. Loss of trust: If a state government collapses, people blame the ruling party for failure.
2. Chance for change: Fresh elections give voters an opportunity to try new leadership.
3. Weak alliances: Many governments fall because of unstable coalitions. Voters may then prefer a stronger alternative.
4. Central intervention: Sometimes people feel the party at the Centre used Article 356 unfairly. In such cases, sympathy may go to the opposition.
5. Public anger: Often, law and order crises or corruption scandals trigger President’s Rule. Voters react by voting against the old rulers.

The Role of the Courts

The use of Article 356 has been controversial. Many times, critics said it was misused for political reasons. For example, central governments in the past dismissed state governments run by rival parties.

This changed after the S.R. Bommai case in 1994. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 356 cannot be used casually. The Court said the President’s decision can be reviewed. It also said a majority must be tested on the floor of the House. This ruling reduced misuse, but political instability in states still leads to President’s Rule.

Manipur in 2025

The debate is back in focus today because of Manipur. The state has been under President’s Rule since February 2025. Parliament extended it again during the Monsoon Session. Manipur has a long record of changes after President’s Rule. The Congress, BJP, and regional parties have all taken turns. If the trend continues, the next election may again bring a new party or alliance into power.

What This Means for Indian Politics

The pattern of President’s Rule leading to change in power has some big lessons:

• It shows how fragile some state governments are, especially coalitions.
• It highlights the role of voters in demanding accountability after a crisis.
• It underlines the need for stronger internal democracy in parties, to prevent defections and instability.
• It reminds us that President’s Rule is not just a legal step but a political turning point.

When President’s Rule ends, it often feels like a reset button. Voters get a fresh chance to decide. And history shows they often choose change.