S.R. Bommai v Union of India and Others
Case Brief: S.R. Bommai v Union of India
Citation: (1994) 3 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India (Nine-Judge Bench)
Year: 1994
Legal Area: Constitutional Law — Federalism, President’s Rule, Centre-State Relations
Background and Facts:
S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of Karnataka, heading a Janata Party government.
His government was dismissed by the Governor in 1989 under Article 356 of the Constitution, claiming that the government had lost the majority in the Legislative Assembly.
Bommai and others challenged the validity of the proclamation of President’s Rule, arguing it was arbitrary and mala fide.
Similar issues of President's Rule imposition arose in Nagaland, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh and were clubbed together in this case.
Issues Before the Court:
What are the limitations on the President’s power under Article 356?
Can the President’s Rule be judicially reviewed?
Does the proclamation require prior floor testing in the Assembly?
Can the President dissolve the State Assembly before Parliament approves the proclamation?
Is secularism a part of the basic structure of the Constitution?
Judgment:
The Supreme Court delivered a historic and unanimous decision with separate concurring opinions, laying down strong safeguards against misuse of Article 356. Key rulings:
1. Judicial Review is Permissible:
The proclamation under Article 356 is not beyond judicial scrutiny.
If the court finds that the proclamation is mala fide, based on irrelevant or extraneous grounds, or without adequate material, it can strike it down.
2. Majority to be Tested on the Floor of the House:
The correct method to determine if a government has lost majority is floor test, not the Governor’s subjective satisfaction.
The Governor must call for a floor test before recommending dismissal.
3. Assembly Cannot Be Dissolved Before Parliamentary Approval:
Until the proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament, the Legislative Assembly cannot be dissolved.
It can only be kept under suspended animation.
4. Secularism is Part of Basic Structure:
The Court held that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
A State government that acts against secularism may be dismissed under Article 356.
5. Centre Cannot Use Article 356 Arbitrarily:
Misuse of Article 356 for political reasons violates the federal structure.
The Union government must act with constitutional justification, not political convenience.
Legal Principles Established:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Judicial Review of Article 356 | Courts can strike down President’s Rule if it's mala fide or unconstitutional |
| Floor Test Mandate | Legislative majority must be proven on the floor of the House, not outside |
| Secularism as Basic Structure | Any government promoting religious bias can be dismissed constitutionally |
| Federalism Protection | Arbitrary dismissal of State governments undermines the federal structure |
| No Pre-emptive Dissolution | Assembly cannot be dissolved until Parliament approves President’s Rule |
Significance of the Judgment:
This judgment was a turning point in Centre-State relations.
It checked the arbitrary use of Article 356, which had been misused over 90 times between 1950 and 1994.
It strengthened federalism and protected democracy at the state level.
The judgment reaffirmed constitutional morality, ensuring that central power isn't abused.
Related Case Laws:
State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1977): Earlier upheld non-justiciability of Article 356 (now overruled in effect).
Kihoto Hollohan v Zachillhu (1992): Regarding disqualification and judicial review in legislative matters.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain (1975): Reinforced the concept of basic structure doctrine.
Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala (1973): Foundation of the basic structure doctrine, including federalism and secularism.
Summary Table:
| Aspect | Details |
|---|---|
| Parties | S.R. Bommai (Former CM, Karnataka) v Union of India |
| Court | Supreme Court of India (9-judge Bench) |
| Citation | (1994) 3 SCC 1 |
| Legal Focus | Article 356 – President’s Rule |
| Main Holding | Proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review; floor test is necessary |
| Basic Structure Doctrine | Secularism and federalism affirmed as part of basic structure |
| Impact | Strengthened democracy and curtailed political misuse of central powers |
Conclusion:
S.R. Bommai v Union of India is a constitutional milestone that transformed the interpretation and use of Article 356. It firmly established that constitutional governance, federalism, and secularism are non-negotiable elements of Indian democracy. The judgment continues to be a bulwark against the arbitrary dismissal of state governments.
RELATED Blog
0 comments