1. Judicial Scrutiny: The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case in 1994 has been a significant legal factor. The court held that the power of the President to dismiss a state government is not absolute. The decision of the President can be questioned in a court of law on the grounds of malafide or arbitrariness. This has made the central government more cautious in using Article 356.

2. Coalition Politics: The political scenario in India has changed since the mid-1990s with the emergence of coalition governments at the Centre. The party at the Centre does not have a majority in many states. Therefore, it has become politically unviable to dismiss a state government as it may lead to loss of support from coalition partners.

3. Rise of Regional Parties: The rise of regional parties has also contributed to the reduced use of Article 356. These parties have a significant influence in their respective states and any attempt to dismiss their government can lead to a backlash.

4. Increased Political Awareness: There is an increased awareness among the people about their democratic rights. Any misuse of Article 356 is seen as an attack on federalism and is not taken lightly by the people.

5. Recommendations of Sarkaria Commission: The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations recommended that Article 356 must be used sparingly, in a bona fide manner, and as a measure of last resort. This has also acted as a deterrent for the misuse of the Article.

6. Role of Governor: The role of the Governor has come under scrutiny and there is a demand for making the office more transparent and accountable. This has also contributed to the reduced use of Article 356.

7. International Image: India's image as a stable democracy can be tarnished by the frequent use of Article 356. This has also acted as a deterrent for the central government.

In conclusion, a combination of legal and political factors has led to the reduced use of Article 356 since the mid-1990s.

Question

1. Judicial Scrutiny: The landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case in 1994 has been a significant legal factor. The court held that the power of the President to dismiss a state government is not absolute. The decision of the President can be questioned in a court of law on the grounds of malafide or arbitrariness. This has made the central government more cautious in using Article 356.

2. Coalition Politics: The political scenario in India has changed since the mid-1990s with the emergence of coalition governments at the Centre. The party at the Centre does not have a majority in many states. Therefore, it has become politically unviable to dismiss a state government as it may lead to loss of support from coalition partners.

3. Rise of Regional Parties: The rise of regional parties has also contributed to the reduced use of Article 356. These parties have a significant influence in their respective states and any attempt to dismiss their government can lead to a backlash.

4. Increased Political Awareness: There is an increased awareness among the people about their democratic rights. Any misuse of Article 356 is seen as an attack on federalism and is not taken lightly by the people.

5. Recommendations of Sarkaria Commission: The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations recommended that Article 356 must be used sparingly, in a bona fide manner, and as a measure of last resort. This has also acted as a deterrent for the misuse of the Article.

6. Role of Governor: The role of the Governor has come under scrutiny and there is a demand for making the office more transparent and accountable. This has also contributed to the reduced use of Article 356.

7. International Image: India's image as a stable democracy can be tarnished by the frequent use of Article 356. This has also acted as a deterrent for the central government.

In conclusion, a combination of legal and political factors has led to the reduced use of Article 356 since the mid-1990s.

Knowee AI · Accepted Answer