Q.President's rule can be imposed if government isn't run per Constitution. State whether 6 given scenarios (MLA killings, rising crime, hung assembly, opposing-party rule at centre/state, communal riots, water-dispute non-compliance) fit for President's rule imposition. Give reasons.

Article 356 applies only when "a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution" — ordinary crime, a hung Assembly, or normal political rivalry between differently-ruled State and Centre governments do not meet that standard, as the chapter's own account of Article 356's post-1967 misuse shows. …

1. Two opposition MLAs killed by criminals, opposition demanding dismissal: No. This is a serious crime, but by itself it does not show that "the government of the State cannot be carried on" as the Constitution requires; if the government still commands a majority and is functioning, this is a matter for the police and courts, not central takeover.

2. Rising kidnapping-for-ransom and crimes against women: No. An increase in specific categories of crime reflects a policing/governance failure for which the State government should be held accountable through the normal political and legal process; it does not by itself amount to the constitutional breakdown Article 356 requires.

3. No party has secured a majority; MLAs may be lured with money: No, not on this basis alone. A hung Assembly is a normal democratic outcome; the proper constitutional course is to let parties attempt to form a coalition and prove their majority on the floor of the House — the chapter itself notes that courts have ruled the constitutional validity of imposing President's Rule can be examined, so merely fearing horse-trading is not the same as an actual failure of government.

4. Different parties rule the Centre and the State and are bitter opponents: No, clearly not a fit case. The chapter is explicit that after 1967 the Centre repeatedly used Article 356, or the Governor's office, in exactly this situation — to dismiss opposition-ruled State governments or prevent them from taking office — and presents this as one of the most controversial misuses of the provision, not a legitimate ground for its use. …