S. R. BOMMAi v. UNION OF INDIA
1994 , AIR 1918 , 1994 SCC ( 3 ) 1
This case analysis is written by - Nishitha Yadav ,B.A.LL.B(H) , University of Allahabad.
|
Case no. |
|
|
Date
of judgement |
11/03/1994 |
|
Court |
Supreme
Court of INDIA [09 judge constitutional bench] |
|
Bench |
Justice
kuldipsingh Justice
P. B. Sawant Justice
K. Ramaswamy JusticeS.C.
Agarwal Justice Yogeshwar Dayal Justice
B. P. Jeevan Reddy Justice
S. R. Pandian Justice
A. M. Ahmadi |
|
Petitioner
|
S.
R. Bommai |
|
Respondent
|
Union
Of India |
|
Legal
provisions involved |
Article
356 of Indian Constitution |
Abstract
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark case in Indian constitutional
jurisprudence, especially with regard to Centre-State relations and the misuse
of Article 356 of the Constitution. The case arose from the dismissal of
elected state governments by the Central Government using Article 356, often on
political grounds. In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court clarified
the interpretation of Article 356, ruling that the President’s decision to
impose President’s Rule is open to judicial review. It further emphasized that
a government’s majority must be determined through a floor test in the
legislative assembly. The
decision reinforced the principles of federalism, democracy, secularism, and
constitutional morality, and has had a lasting impact on Indian constitutional
practice.
Background of the Case
This
case revolves around Article 356 of constitution ( president’srule ). When
Janata Party emerged as victory party in 1985 Assembly elections from state of
Karnataka . S. R. Bommai in 1988 replaced Chief Minister Ramakrishna Hegde who
formed government in 1985 .
In
September of 1988 , a Janata Dal legislator , deflected from party taking away
19 of its members , following which center dismissed state government using
Article 356. Bommai’s request to his government’s majority via a floor test was
denied by the governor. He then knocked the doors of High Court where his
appeal was ruled against, forcing him to appeal to Supreme Court.Similar dismissals took place in Nagaland,
Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh, often when opposition
parties came to power.
These
dismissals, all under Article 356, were seen by many as politically motivated
attempts by the ruling party at the Centre to destabilize state governments led
by rival parties. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court, questioning the
constitutional validity of the proclamations and the arbitrary use of Article
356.
Arguments
Petitioner
The petitioners, including S.R. Bommai, argued that invoking President’s Rule
in their case was unjustified and violated core principles of democracy and
federalism. They claimed that the Governor had acted with bias and had denied
the government a fair chance to prove its majority on the assembly floor. The
petitioners also contended that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356
should not be considered final or immune from legal examination. They also pointed out that the
dissolution of the legislative assembly before Parliament’s approval was a
clear violation of Article 356(3). In certain cases, such as those involving
communal issues, the petitioners also argued that the Centre had used the
excuse of religious disharmony to dismiss state governments on unconstitutional
grounds, thereby violating the secular nature of the Constitution.
Respondent
The
Union of India defended the proclamations, stating that the President’s
decision under Article 356 was based on the Governor’s report and was a matter
of political judgment .They maintained that the President’s satisfaction was
based on personal judgment and, therefore, not subject to judicial review. The
respondents maintained that the situation in the respective states warranted
immediate action to preserve constitutional order and that the dismissal of the
governments was justified. They denied that any political bias or communal
motivation influenced the decision, and they insisted that the Centre had acted
in accordance with the Constitution.
Judgement
The
Supreme Court, in a historic and far-reaching decision delivered by a
nine-judge Constitution Bench, held by a 7:2 majority that the President’s
proclamation under Article 356 is not immune from judicial review. The Court
ruled that the power conferred on the President under this article is not
absolute or unfettered and that the satisfaction of the President must be based
on objective, relevant material. If the grounds for invoking President’s Rule
are found to be mala fide, arbitrary, or based on irrelevant considerations,
the courts have the authority to strike down such proclamations as
unconstitutional.
A
key principle laid down in the judgment was that the appropriate forum to
determine whether a government has lost its majority is the floor of the
Legislative Assembly, not the subjective assessment of the Governor or the
President. The Court emphasized that before dismissing a state government on
the grounds of losing majority support, the Governor must allow a floor test to
be conducted in the Assembly. The failure to do so, as in the case of S.R. Bommai,
renders the proclamation invalid.
Furthermore,
the Court clarified that while Article 356 empowers the President to assume
control of a state’s executive functions, the dissolution of the Legislative
Assembly cannot take place immediately. It must be done only after the
proclamation is laid before Parliament and receives approval under Article
356(3). If Parliament disapproves the proclamation, the Assembly must be
restored.
Another
vital aspect of the judgment was its reaffirmation that federalism is part of
the basic structure of the Constitution, and any attempt to disrupt the balance
between the Centre and the States would be unconstitutional. The Court also
ruled that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, and any state
government that acts against this foundational principle could potentially face
constitutional consequences, but only through lawful and procedurally sound
methods.
The
judges individually delivered concurring and partly concurring opinions, but
they all converged on the critical issues: the necessity of judicial review,
the requirement of floor tests, and the constitutional boundaries within which
Article 356 must operate. The ruling thus marked a significant shift in
constitutional law, laying down firm guidelines to prevent the politicised and
arbitrary dismissal of state governments by the central executive.
Impact of the judgement
The Bommai judgment
fundamentally transformed the Centre-State relationship in India. Before this
case, Article 356 had been misused more than ninety times since independence,
often to dislodge governments led by opposition parties. The judgment placed
important safeguards against this misuse. It made it clear that the floor of
the Assembly, not the Governor’s subjective report, is the only forum to test a
government's strength. It also redefined the role of Governors, emphasizing
that they are constitutional authorities and not political agents of the
Centre. The judgment led to a significant reduction in the frequency of Article
356 being invoked and encouraged more responsible federal behavior. It also set
a precedent for future cases involving constitutional morality and misuse of
emergency powers.
Significance of the
case
The
S.R. Bommai case is one of the most cited and respected judgments in
Indian constitutional law. It not only safeguarded the democratic process in
states but also clarified the limits of the President’s and Governor’s powers.
It underscored that federalism, secularism, and democracy are essential
features of the Constitution that cannot be diluted by political
considerations. The case has become a foundational precedent for evaluating
constitutional crises, ensuring that emergency provisions are not used for
partisan ends. It also reinforced the power of the judiciary to check executive
excesses, thereby strengthening the doctrine of checks and balances.
Conclusion
The
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India judgment is a cornerstone of Indian
constitutional law, protecting the sanctity of democratic governance and state
autonomy. By subjecting presidential proclamations to judicial review,
mandating floor tests to assess majority, and affirming the importance of
federalism and secularism as core constitutional values, the Supreme Court of
India established a clear and enduring framework for Centre-State relations.
The decision continues to influence constitutional practice, academic
discourse, and the political ethos of the country, serving as a reminder that
power must be exercised within the bounds of constitutional propriety and
democratic ethics.
The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case
stands as a monumental milestone in the evolution of Indian constitutional law.
It not only reined in the arbitrary and politically motivated use of Article
356 but also reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and the core
principles enshrined within it. By declaring that the President's satisfaction
under Article 356 is not beyond judicial review, and by insisting that a
government's majority must be tested on the floor of the legislative assembly
rather than decided unilaterally by the Governor or the President, the Supreme
Court fortified the democratic framework of the nation.
The judgment significantly strengthened the
federal structure by reinforcing the idea that states are not mere appendages
of the Centre, but autonomous entities with constitutionally guaranteed powers.
Furthermore, it reiterated the importance of secularism as a non-negotiable
feature of the Indian polity, stating that any deviation from this ideal could
invite constitutional consequences, but only through a fair and legal process.
This ruling also underscored the judiciary's
role as the guardian of the Constitution and protector of democratic values,
ensuring that executive actions remain within constitutional limits. It served
as a powerful reminder that constitutional authority must be exercised
responsibly and in good faith, and that the rule of law must prevail over
political expediency.
In essence, the judgment laid down clear and enduring principles for the operation of Indian federalism, the limits of emergency powers, and the sanctity of democratically elected governments. It continues to serve as a guiding light in constitutional interpretation and has profoundly shaped the legal and political landscape of the country. As such, it remains not only a landmark case in legal history but also a powerful symbol of India’s commitment to democracy, secularism, and constitutional governance.
Hastags:-
#SRBommai
#UnionOfIndia
#PresidentRule
#Article356
#IndianFederalism
#LandmarkJudgment
#ConstitutionalLaw
#SupremeCourtOfIndia
#CenterStateRelations
#JudicialReview
Post a Comment