S.R. BOMMAI V. UNION OF INDIA (1994)
CITATION: S.R. BOMMAI V. UNION OF INDIA (1994) SCR 644: AIR 1994 SC 1918: (1994)3 SCC1
Decided:
11 March 1994
Court:
Supreme Court of India
Author- Simple Kumari, B.A.LL.B(Hons), s.s.khanna
girls degree college, University of Allahabad
KEYWORDS- 9 judge constitutional bench, Article356,
Judicial Review, Discretionary Powers, Basic Structure Doctrine , Federalism
ABSTRACT
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) is a landmark which is decided by the Supreme Court of India which fundamentally reshaped the interpretation of Article 356 of the Constitution, that allow the imposition of President’s Rule in Indian states. The case was triggered by the dismissal of the Karnataka government led by S.R. Bommai, without conducting a floor test to prove the government's majority in the Legislative Assembly. The dismissal was challenged, leading to a constitutional crisis and a legal battle over the misuse of Article 356.
A nine-judge constitutional bench delivered its verdict on March 11, 1994, ruling that the President’s power under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The Court emphasized that a floor test is the only valid method to determine the majority of a state government. The judgment strongly upheld the principle of federalism and clarified the constitutional roles of the Governor and the President. This historic ruling placed effective checks on arbitrary central intervention in state affairs and remains a cornerstone in Indian constitutional jurisprudence on Centre-State relations
PRIMRY
DETAILS
|
Details |
Information |
|
Case Name |
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India |
|
Petitioner |
S.R. Bommai & Others |
|
Resondent |
Union of India |
|
Court |
Supreme court of India |
|
Bench |
9- Judge Constitutional Bench |
|
Date of Judgment |
March 11, 1994 |
|
Jurisdiction |
Constitutional Bench |
|
Key Articles involved |
Article 356, Article74, Article365 of the Indian Constitution |
|
Legal Issue |
Scope and misuse of Article 356; Judicial review; majority to be tested on the floor of the house |
|
Significance |
Strengthened federalism, limited arbitrary dismissal of state government |
|
Judges on the Bench |
Justices S.R. Pandian, A.M.Ahmadi, J.S.Verma, P.B. Saswant, K.Ramswamy, S.C.Agarwal, Yogeshwar Dayal, B.P.Jeevan Reddy |
BACKGROUND
The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case originated
from a major constitutional crisis in the state of Karnataka. In 1985, the
Janata Party won the state Assembly elections and formed the government with
Ramakrishna Hegde as Chief Minister. In 1988, S.R. Bommai replaced Hegde as the
Chief Minister. However, the political stability of the Bommai government was
soon challenged.
In September 1988, a legislator from the Janata Dal
defected from the party, taking along 19 other members of the Legislative
Assembly. This thing created doubts about the Bommai government's majority in
the House. The Governor of Karnataka, without allowing Bommai to prove his
majority on the Assembly floor, recommended the imposition of President’s Rule
under Article 356 of the Constitution, citing a loss of majority. The President
accepted the recommendation, and the state government was dismissed.
Bommai challenged the dismissal in the Karnataka
High Court, seeking to prove his majority through a floor test, which is
considered the proper constitutional method to determine the confidence of the
House. However, the High Court ruled against him. Consequently, Bommai appealed
to the Supreme Court of India.
This case questioned the scope of the President’s
power under Article 356, the role of the Governor, and whether judicial review
could be exercised over such proclamations. The appeal led to one of the most
significant constitutional decisions in Indian legal history, aimed at
preventing the misuse of Article 356 by the central government.
ISSUES
RAISED
1. Existence
of Material for President’s Satisfaction
Whether there existed sufficient and relevant
material before the President to justify that a situation had arisen where the
State Government could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of
the Constitution.
2. Extent of
Presidential Powers under Article 356(1)
Whether the President has absolute and unfettered
powers to issue a Proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution, or
whether such power is subject to constitutional limitations.
3. Judicial
Review of Article 356 Proclamations
Whether the Proclamation issued under Article 356 of
the Constitution is subject to judicial review, and if so, to what extent the
judiciary can examine the material or reasoning behind such a Proclamation.
ARGUMENTS
OF THE PARTIES
Arguments
of the Appellant (S.R. Bommai & Others)
1. No Opportunity to Prove Majority:
The petitioner was not given even a single
opportunity to prove the majority in the Assembly through a floor test, despite
requests. Neither was the Assembly summoned nor any democratic procedure
followed.
2. Political Misuse of Article 356:
The imposition of President’s Rule was claimed to be
politically motivated and not based on any real constitutional breakdown.
Issues like rioting or administrative lapses were not enough to justify
dissolution.
3. Lack of Substantive Material:
No credible or substantive facts were presented to
support the President's satisfaction that the state government had lost its
constitutional legitimacy.
4. Violation of Article 74(2):
The Centre failed to transparently provide material
to justify the proclamation, and the requirement under Article 74(2) (advice of
Council of Ministers) was not satisfied in spirit.
5. Secularism Argument:
It was argued that secularism is a basic feature of
the Constitution; thus, a state cannot be dissolved for alleged non-secular
acts unless such conduct was explicitly proven.
Arguments
of the Respondents (Union of India)
1. Limited Scope of Judicial Review:
The respondents argued that judicial review in
constitutional matters is limited, unlike administrative law. Courts cannot
fully scrutinize the President’s satisfaction or motives behind Article 356.
2. Presidential Discretion is Constitutionally
Protected:
The President works on the advice of the Council of
Ministers (Article 74). Courts are prohibited from inquiring into such advice,
as per Article 74(2). Thus, the Proclamation was valid on its face.
3. Court Lacks Competence:
It was argued that courts cannot assess the adequacy
of the material or the procedural requirements behind the proclamation of
President's Rule.
4. Proclamation is Legal if Based on Cabinet Advice:
As long as the President acts on cabinet advice and
Article 356(1) is invoked properly, the validity of the proclamation stands,
even if the Assembly is not consulted.
5. Doctrine of Secularism:
They argued that if a State Government acts in a
non-secular manner, it can be dissolved lawfully under the constitutional
doctrine of secularism, which is part of the basic structure.
SIGNIFICANCE
The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case is a landmark
judgment in Indian constitutional law as it defined the scope and limitations
of Article 356, which deals with the imposition of President’s Rule in a state.
The Supreme Court clarified that the President’s power under Article 356 is not
absolute and can be exercised only under extraordinary circumstances, where
there is a real and provable breakdown of constitutional machinery in the
state.
The Court emphasized that the floor of the Assembly
is the only place to test a government’s majority, and not arbitrary
assessments by the Governor or the Centre. The judgment rejected the idea that
courts cannot review the material based on which Article 356 was invoked, thus
affirming that such proclamations are subject to judicial review.
This decision reinforced the recommendations of the
Sarkaria Commission and gave judicial backing to the principle that states are
not subordinate to the Centre, but rather enjoy equal constitutional status.
The Court emhasized the concept of “cooperative federalism”, saying that peace
and coordination between the Union and state governments can only be maintained
through mutual respect and balance of powers.
Overall, this case became a cornerstone in
protecting federalism in India and placed significant checks on the misuse of
Article 356 for political gains.
JUDGMENT
A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered the historic judgment in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India on 11th March 1994, laying down strict limitations on the President's power under Article 356 of the Constitution. The Court held that the Presidential Proclamation imposing President’s Rule must be
exercised with great caution, aligning with the views of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Sarkaria Commission recommendations.
Ø The Court ruled that:
ü President's power to dismiss a state government is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.
ü The Proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament under Article 356(3). If not approved within two months, it automatically lapses, and the dismissed state government is reinstated.
ü Writ petitions can be filed against the Proclamation, and the Court is empowered to examine whether the President’s satisfaction was based on relevant and valid material.
ü The Court rejected the idea that Article 356 gives unrestrained power to the Union and emphasized that such power must not be misused for political purposes.
ü While Article 356 does not explicitly mention dissolution of the state legislature, such a power can be inferred when the constitutional machinery breaks down.
ü The Court recognized secularism as a basic feature, stating that if a state government acts against secular principles, it can be constitutionally dismisse.
IMPACT
OF THE CASE
1.
Restrictive Use of Article 356:
Before the judgment, Article 356 was frequently
misused to impose President’s Rule and dismiss state governments for political
reasons. Between 1950 and March 1994, President’s Rule was imposed 100
times—averaging 2.5 times per year.
However, after the Bommai judgment from 1995 to
2021, it was imposed only 29 times, representing significant reduction and
reflecting a more restrained and responsible application of Article 356.
2.
Strengthening Federalism:
The judgment ensured that Article 356 proclamations
are justiciable, meaning they can be challenged in court. It placed
constitutional limitations on the President’s discretion, thereby strengthening
India’s federal structure without eliminating the Centre’s authority. This
balance helped protect state autonomy and maintain separation of powers.
CONCLUSION
The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India judgment states as
a landmark decision in Indian constitutional law, especially concerning the
misuse of Article 356. It established that the President’s power to impose
President’s Rule is not absolute and is subject to judicial investigation. The
Supreme Court emphasized that secularism is a basic structure of the
Constitution and any state government acting against secular values can be
constitutionally dismissed. Importantly, the Court ruled that a floor test in
the legislative assembly is the appropriate method to determine the majority,
not the subjective satisfaction of the Governor or President.
This case significantly strengthened the principle
of federalism by ensuring that the Union government cannot arbitrarily dismiss
state governments. It also restricted the central government’s discretion and
reinforced the doctrine of cooperative federalism. Post-judgment, the misuse of
Article 356 has considerably reduced, promoting political stability and
democratic accountability.
In conclusion, the S.R. Bommai case is a cornerstone
for protecting democratic values, ensuring constitutional governance, and
maintaining the delicate balance of power between the Centre and the States in
India.
REFERENCES
https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/s-r-bommai-v-union-of-india-case-1994
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._R._Bommai_v._Union_of_India
https://blog.ipleaders.in/s-r-bommai-v-union-of-india-power-of-presidents-rule-curtailed/
http://www.manupatracademy.com/LegalPost/MANU_SC_0444_1994
Post a Comment