Special Provisions
(1) If the President is satisfied (from a Governor's report or otherwise) that a State's government cannot be carried on per the Constitution, the President may proclaim: (a) assuming the State government's/Governor's functions and powers (except the State Legislature's); (b) declaring the State Legislature's powers exercisable by/under Parliament's authority; (c) making necessary incidental provisions - but cannot assume High Court powers or suspend High Court-related constitutional provisions. (2)-(3) Such a Proclamation can be revoked/varied, must be laid before Parliament, and lapses after 2 months unless approved by both Houses (with special Lok Sabha-dissolution rules). (4) An approved Proclamation lasts 6 months, renewable, but never beyond 3 years total (with a specific historical 5-year exception for 1987 Punjab). (5) Beyond one year, continuation needs both an ongoing Emergency (national or in that state) AND an Election Commission certification that election difficulties justify the extension (with the same Punjab exception).
This is "President's Rule" - the mechanism for the Union to take over a state's administration when its constitutional government breaks down, most commonly used when no party/coalition can form a stable government after an election, or amid a serious governance crisis. This has historically been the single most politically controversial emergency provision, having been invoked well over 100 times since 1950 - often, critics argued, for political rather than genuine constitutional-breakdown reasons - until the Supreme Court's landmark 1994 ruling in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India established that the President's satisfaction under this article IS subject to judicial review, significantly curbing what had previously been seen as an almost unchecked political tool.
The S.R. Bommai case (1994) is the single most important judicial check on this article - the Supreme Court held that a President's Rule proclamation can be judicially reviewed and struck down if the President's "satisfaction" was based on irrelevant considerations, mala fide intent, or was otherwise clearly unjustified - transforming Article 356 from an almost unchallengeable political tool into one meaningfully subject to constitutional accountability.