S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (AIR 1994 SC 1918)

The case of S.R. Bommai vs Union of India is considered one of the most significant constitutional law judgments in India. Delivered by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court on March 11, 1994, it clarified the scope and limits of the President’s power to impose President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. The judgment laid down landmark principles regarding the federal structure, democratic governance, and judicial review in India.

Background of the Case:

The case arose from the political developments in Karnataka, where S.R. Bommai, the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal government, faced allegations of losing majority support in the legislative assembly. In April 1989, the Governor of Karnataka recommended to the President of India that the government could no longer function in accordance with the Constitution and suggested the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356. Consequently, the President issued a proclamation, dismissing the Bommai government and imposing President’s Rule.

S.R. Bommai challenged the imposition of President’s Rule in the Karnataka High Court. The High Court upheld the proclamation, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court. Similar appeals were also pending in relation to the dismissal of governments in states such as Nagaland, Meghalaya, and Madhya Pradesh. Given the constitutional importance, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court heard the case.

Issues Before the Court

The primary issues before the Supreme Court were:

1. Scope and extent of Article 356: Under what circumstances can the President invoke Article 356 to impose President’s Rule in a state?
2. Judicial Review: Whether the President’s satisfaction in invoking Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
3. Federalism and Democracy: How does the imposition of President’s Rule affect federalism and democracy in India?

Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court unanimously held that the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The key principles laid down by the Court are as follows:

1. Scope of Article 356

• Article 356 can only be invoked when there is a genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state.
• The President cannot dismiss a state government arbitrarily or on political grounds.
• Before recommending President’s Rule, the Governor must objectively assess the situation and provide clear, cogent, and material evidence to support the claim of a constitutional breakdown.

2. Judicial Review of the Proclamation

• The Court held that the President’s satisfaction is not beyond judicial scrutiny. Courts have the power to examine whether the President acted on valid grounds or whether the action was mala fide or politically motivated.
• If the proclamation is found to be unconstitutional or mala fide, the Court can strike it down and restore the dismissed government.

3. Floor Test as a Constitutional Requirement

• The Court emphasized that the appropriate method to determine the majority in a legislative assembly is through a floor test, where the Chief Minister proves his or her majority on the floor of the house.
• The Governor should not bypass the legislature by directly recommending President’s Rule unless there is no possibility of a floor test.

4. Nature of Federalism in India

• The judgment reiterated that federalism is a basic feature of the Constitution, and the central government cannot encroach upon the autonomy of state governments unless there is a genuine constitutional breakdown.
• Although India has a quasi-federal structure, with a strong center and weaker states, the autonomy of states must be respected.

5. Temporary Nature of President’s Rule

• President’s Rule is inherently temporary and cannot be continued indefinitely.
• The President’s proclamation must be placed before both Houses of Parliament for approval, ensuring parliamentary oversight.

Significance of the Judgment

The S.R. Bommai judgment has had a far-reaching impact on Indian constitutional law and governance. Its significance can be highlighted in the following ways:

• Strengthened Federalism:

By ensuring that arbitrary dismissals of state governments are subject to judicial review, the judgment bolstered the federal structure of India. It prevented the misuse of Article 356, which had become frequent during the 1970s and 1980s.

• Democratic Governance:

The Court underscored that democracy is a basic feature of the Constitution. Arbitrary imposition of President’s Rule undermines the will of the people expressed through their elected representatives. The emphasis on a floor test ensured that only the legislature, not the Governor, could decide the fate of an elected government.

• Judicial Activism:

The case demonstrated judicial activism in protecting constitutional values. By allowing judicial review of the President’s satisfaction, the Court ensured accountability in the exercise of executive power.

• Limits on Governor’s Powers:

The judgment clarified that the Governor’s role is not absolute and must be exercised in accordance with constitutional principles. The Governor cannot act as an agent of the central government to destabilize a state government.