List Of State Governments Sacked By Indira Gandhi

Indira Gandhi’s Misuse of Article 356: The Political Weaponization of President’s Rule

India’s federal structure, envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, was designed to maintain a healthy balance between the Centre and the States. Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the President to impose President’s Rule in a state, was meant to be used sparingly and only when constitutional governance in a state broke down. However, under the leadership of Indira Gandhi, this provision was systematically misused to destabilize and dismiss opposition-ruled state governments, eroding the very fabric of federalism. Two significant chapters in this political saga are the dismissal of the DMK government in 1976 and the wholesale sacking of eleven opposition-led states in 1980.

Tamil Nadu 1976: Targeting the Voice Against Emergency

In 1975, India was thrust into a state of Emergency, a dark period during which civil liberties were suspended and political dissent was crushed. Indira Gandhi, facing growing opposition and legal challenges, invoked Article 352, giving her near-dictatorial powers. During this period, the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), led by M. Karunanidhi, remained a strong and vocal critic of the Emergency. The DMK’s ideological opposition to central authoritarianism and its pro-democracy stance made it a thorn in the side of the Congress regime.

In response, the Indira Gandhi government accused the DMK of corruption and misgovernance. On 31 January 1976, Karunanidhi’s democratically elected government was dismissed, and President’s Rule was imposed in Tamil Nadu. The justification was vague and based on charges that were never proven in court. The real motive, however, was political: to eliminate resistance during the Emergency and assert complete control over the state.

This move was a textbook case of political misuse of Article 356. The DMK was not given an opportunity to respond, and the state’s assembly was dissolved without proving any real breakdown of constitutional machinery. It was clear that Indira Gandhi used this constitutional provision not for safeguarding democracy, but for subduing it.

The 1980 Purge: A Blanket Attack on Non-Congress States

The 1977 General Election marked a significant shift in Indian politics. For the first time since independence, the Congress Party was voted out of power at the Centre. The Janata Party, a coalition of opposition forces that had united against the Emergency, formed the government under Prime Minister Morarji Desai.

One of the early acts of the Janata government was to dismiss several Congress-ruled state governments, many of which had been accused of supporting the Emergency excesses. While this was also a questionable use of Article 356, the real retaliation came when Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980 after the collapse of the Janata coalition.

In an unprecedented move, Indira Gandhi dismissed eleven opposition-led state governments across India. These governments, mostly under the Janata Party or its allies, had been democratically elected and were functioning within constitutional limits. But they were not aligned with the central government, and that alone was reason enough for their removal in the eyes of the returning Congress regime.

The states affected included:

  1. Uttar Pradesh – CM: Ram Naresh Yadav
  2. Bihar – CM: Ram Sundar Das / Karpoori Thakur
  3. Madhya Pradesh – CM: Sunderlal Patwa
  4. Rajasthan – CM: Bhairon Singh Shekhawat
  5. Odisha – CM: Nilamani Routray
  6. Punjab – CM: Parkash Singh Badal
  7. Himachal Pradesh – CM: Shanta Kumar
  8. Haryana – CM: Devi Lal
  9. Gujarat – CM: Babubhai J. Patel
  10. Assam – CM: Golap Borbora
  11. West Bengal – CM: Jyoti Basu (attempt failed due to strong opposition)

In all these cases, the governments were sacked under the pretext of a “breakdown of constitutional machinery.” But there was no credible evidence of such a breakdown. Most of these dismissals occurred within days of Indira Gandhi assuming power. There was no floor test, no inquiry, and no democratic process followed. It was a political cleansing operation, meant to eliminate any non-Congress influence in the states and re-establish Congress hegemony nationwide.

This brazen misuse of power not only violated the federal spirit of the Constitution but also set a dangerous precedent for future governments. The Centre had now become a tool of party politics, where Article 356 could be wielded as a weapon to settle scores, not to protect democracy.

The Aftermath and Condemnation

These misuses did not go unnoticed. The Sarkaria Commission, set up in 1983 to examine Centre-State relations, strongly condemned the political misuse of Article 356. It called for stricter guidelines, including the necessity of a floor test in the Assembly before dismissing any government, and emphasized that Article 356 should be a measure of last resort.

Later, the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in the S. R. Bommai case (1994) laid down crucial limitations on the use of Article 356. It ruled that the imposition of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review, and that political differences cannot be considered constitutional failure.

The misuse of Article 356 during Indira Gandhi’s tenure is often cited as one of the lowest points in Indian federalism. It revealed how constitutional tools could be subverted for party interests, reducing states to mere administrative units under Delhi’s thumb.

Conclusion

Indira Gandhi’s political legacy is complex and deeply polarizing. While she is credited with centralizing power and providing strong leadership during crises like the Bangladesh War of 1971, her misuse of Article 356 reveals the darker side of her rule — one where democratic institutions were subordinated to political ambition.

The dismissal of the DMK government in 1976 and the mass sacking of eleven state governments in 1980 stand as clear examples of authoritarian overreach. These actions undermined India’s federal structure, betrayed the will of state electorates, and shook the foundations of democratic governance.

The lesson from this chapter of Indian history is unambiguous: constitutional provisions are not to be twisted for partisan politics, and the spirit of federalism must be respected at all costs. Indira Gandhi may have wielded Article 356 as a tool of power, but history has judged these acts harshly — and rightly so.

Comments are closed.