The case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, reported as AIR 1994 SC 1918, is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law, dealing primarily with the interpretation of the President’s power to impose President’s Rule in states under Article 356 of the Constitution. The case is significant for its pronouncement on the limits of the Union government’s powers and the scope of judicial review concerning federalism in India.
Citation:
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918
Background:
The case arose when the Janata Dal government of Karnataka, headed by S.R. Bommai, was dismissed by the then Governor of Karnataka on April 21, 1989, on the grounds that the government had lost the majority in the legislative assembly. President’s Rule was imposed under Article 356. S.R. Bommai challenged this dismissal in the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the Governor’s decision. Bommai then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Similar cases of government dismissals in states like Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Madhya Pradesh were also tagged along with Bommai’s case, all of which involved imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356.
Legal Issues:
1. Scope of Article 356: Whether the President’s decision to impose President's Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
2. Federalism: Whether the imposition of President's Rule in states violates the federal structure of the Indian Constitution.
3. Nature of Judicial Review: The extent to which the courts can intervene in assessing the validity of such executive decisions.
4. Discretionary Power of the President: The scope of the President's discretion when acting under Article 356.
Judgment:
A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment on March 11, 1994. The court significantly curtailed the misuse of Article 356 and laid down stringent guidelines for the imposition of President’s Rule. The key points from the judgment are as follows:
1. Federalism as Part of the Basic Structure:
The court ruled that federalism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Any undue encroachment by the Union into the domain of the states under Article 356 would violate this principle. This ensures the autonomy of state governments.
2. Judicial Review of Article 356:
The court held that the proclamation of President’s Rule under Article 356 is not immune from judicial review. If the proclamation is based on irrelevant or extraneous grounds, the court can strike it down. This judgment thus empowered the judiciary to review and nullify arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule.
3. Test of Majority:
The judgment emphasized that the appropriate forum to test the majority of a government is the floor of the assembly. The Governor’s subjective assessment or reports of loss of majority should not be a basis for dismissing a state government. The Governor must call for a floor test to confirm the status of the government.
4. Consequences of Invalid President's Rule:
The court also ruled that if the imposition of President’s Rule is found to be invalid, the dismissed state government must be reinstated, unless elections to the legislative assembly have already been held.
5. Secularism as Part of the Basic Structure:
The court reaffirmed that secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Therefore, state governments engaging in anti-secular activities could be lawfully dismissed under Article 356.
Illustration of the Doctrine:
In the Bommai case, the court found that the dismissal of the Karnataka government by the Governor and the subsequent imposition of President’s Rule were unconstitutional as the loss of majority was not properly tested on the floor of the assembly. The judgment reinforced the principle that Article 356 should be used only as a last resort and not as a tool for political gains.
Relevant Provisions:
Article 356: Empowers the President to impose President’s Rule in a state if the government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution.
Article 74: Deals with the role of the Council of Ministers in aiding and advising the President.
Article 365: Provides that if a state fails to comply with the directions given by the Union, the President can hold that the government of the state cannot be carried on as per constitutional provisions.
Significance:
The S.R. Bommai case is a cornerstone for Indian federalism, greatly restricting the arbitrary use of President’s Rule. It ensures that the Union government cannot misuse its powers to dismiss state governments unless constitutionally justified. The case underscores the importance of judicial oversight and enshrines federalism and secularism as essential components of India’s constitutional framework.
.png)
.png)
.png)
