The correct answer is option 1. In News • The Hindu: Declaration of State emergency under Article 356 and subsequent actions of President should have reasonable nexus: SC Explanation & Key Takeaways: President's Rule under Article 356: • Article 356 of the Constitution of India deals with the provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in states. • India borrowed this provision from Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935. • According to Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, the President of India has the authority to impose president’s rule in any state of the nation and suspend state government “if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Hence statement 1 is correct. Constitutional Basis for President Rule: • Article 355: It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. • Article 365: If the state government fails to comply with those directions, it is a violation of Article 365 by that state, and the President may impose Article 356 on that state and assume his rule. • There are some conditions that the President has to consider before imposing the rule: • If the President is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. • The state government is unable to elect a leader as chief minister within a time prescribed by the Governor of that state. • There’s a breakdown of a coalition leading to the chief minister having a minority support in the House, and the CM fails to prove a majority in the given period. • Loss of majority in the Assembly due to a vote of no-confidence in the House. • Elections postponed on account of situations like natural disasters, war, or epidemics. • The steps of the procedure that are followed in the imposition of the President’s rule in a state: • First, the violation of Article 365 has to be proven for the imposition of the President’s rule in a state. • Such a situation has to be looked into, and the President has to be satisfied that invoking Article 356 is expedient. • The President, when satisfied, proclaims a State Emergency. • Such a proclamation to be implemented has to be approved by the Parliament of India. • It has to be approved by both the Houses of Parliament within two months of issuance by the Simple majority. • In case the Lok Sabha is not in session or is dissolved, and the proclamation is approved by the Rajya Sabha, the proclamation continues till 30 days from the Constitution of the Lok Sabha. • When the proclamation is approved by the Parliament, it can remain active for 6 months. This period can be further extended up to three years in phases of 6 months where approval has to be obtained from the Parliament in every phase. This 3-year extension limit was introduced through the 44th Constitutional Amendment. Such an extension has to be backed by strong reasoning and justification. Before the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act, the maximum period up to which the President’s rule can be imposed was for one year. • Duration of the President’s rule: • Proclamation of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution stands for six months. This timeframe can be extended up to three years, in phases. President’s Rule can be revoked at any time by the President and this does not require Parliament’s approval. • According to the 44th Amendment Act of 1978, the President’s rule can only be extended over a year every 6 months under the following conditions: • The Election Commission certifies that elections cannot be conducted in the state concerned. • There is already a national emergency throughout India or in the whole or any part of the state. • The actions of the President during the subsistence of a State emergency were open to judicial scrutiny, says the Supreme Court in a recent ruling. Hence statement 2 is incorrect.