S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

The case of S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) is one of the most significant constitutional judgements in India’s political and legal history. It established authoritative limits on the use of Article 356, which empowers the President to impose President’s Rule in a state. The decision transformed Indian federalism by reinforcing the principles of secularism, federal balance, and judicial review over the arbitrary use of central power. It also laid down clear guidelines for the dismissal of state governments and became a cornerstone of constitutional governance in India.

Background and Context

The background of this case lies in the frequent and controversial use of Article 356 of the Constitution, which allows the President to assume control of a state’s administration if the constitutional machinery fails within that state. Historically, Article 356 was often misused by ruling parties at the Centre to dismiss opposition-led state governments for political reasons rather than genuine constitutional breakdowns.
S. R. Bommai, a leader of the Janata Dal party, was the Chief Minister of Karnataka. In April 1989, his government was dismissed by the Governor of Karnataka, who claimed that Bommai had lost his majority after several defections. The Governor did not allow Bommai to prove his majority on the floor of the House and instead recommended President’s Rule under Article 356. The President accepted the recommendation and dissolved the state assembly.
Similar dismissals occurred in other states — including Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh — all of which were challenged on similar grounds. These cases were clubbed together, and the Supreme Court treated the S. R. Bommai case as the principal one for deciding the constitutional validity of such proclamations.

Constitutional Provisions Involved

The key constitutional provisions discussed in the case were:

• Article 74(2): Regarding the advice of the Council of Ministers to the President.
• Article 356: Provisions relating to the failure of constitutional machinery in states and imposition of President’s Rule.
• Article 365: Consequences of failure to comply with, or to give effect to, directions from the Union.
• Articles 32 and 226: Powers of judicial review by the Supreme Court and High Courts.
• Article 14: Right to Equality before the law (arbitrariness and fairness in state action).

Issues Before the Court

The Supreme Court had to determine several crucial constitutional questions:

1. Whether the proclamation of President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
2. Whether the President’s satisfaction in imposing Article 356 can be questioned in court.
3. Whether a state government can be dismissed without giving it an opportunity to prove its majority on the floor of the House.
4. Whether dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly before parliamentary approval of the proclamation is valid.
5. Whether secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, violation of which could justify the imposition of Article 356.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments (S. R. Bommai and others):

• The Governor’s report was politically motivated and not based on objective material.
• The Governor should have directed a floor test in the Legislative Assembly to verify the Chief Minister’s majority.
• The President’s proclamation was arbitrary and unconstitutional, violating the federal structure and democratic principles of the Constitution.
• The power under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.

Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India):

• The satisfaction of the President under Article 356 is final and not justiciable.
• The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, and under Article 74(2), that advice cannot be questioned in court.
• The dissolution of the assembly and imposition of President’s Rule were carried out to maintain constitutional order.
• Once approved by Parliament, the proclamation cannot be challenged.

Judgement of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in a historic nine-judge Bench decision delivered on 11 March 1994, laid down far-reaching principles governing the use of Article 356. The judgement, delivered by Justice P.B. Sawant, Justice S.R. Pandian, Justice K. Ramaswamy, Justice J.S. Verma, Justice A.M. Ahmadi, Justice K. Jayachandra Reddy, and Justice S.C. Agrawal, among others, unanimously upheld the primacy of judicial review and limited the arbitrary use of central power.

Key Findings of the Judgement

1. Judicial Review of Article 356:The Court held that the proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.The President’s satisfaction is not beyond scrutiny, and courts can examine whether relevant material existed to justify the proclamation.
2. Floor Test as the Ultimate Proof of Majority:The Court ruled that the proper place to test a government’s majority is the floor of the Legislative Assembly, not the subjective assessment of the Governor.The Governor’s report without a floor test cannot form the sole basis for imposing President’s Rule.
3. Conditional Validity of Proclamations:The Court held that if a proclamation is found to be unconstitutional, the court can restore the dismissed government and revive the dissolved assembly.
4. Parliamentary Approval and Dissolution:The Legislative Assembly cannot be dissolved before the proclamation under Article 356 is approved by both Houses of Parliament.This ensures that Parliament’s approval acts as a check on the executive.
5. Secularism as a Basic Feature:The Court held that secularism is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, and a state government acting against the principle of secularism can be dismissed under Article 356.The judgement cited instances such as communal violence or religious intolerance as valid grounds for such action.
6. Federalism and Democracy:The Court emphasised that federalism and democracy are basic features of the Constitution, and the Centre cannot use Article 356 to destroy the autonomy of states for political reasons.
7. Limited Presidential Discretion:The President’s powers under Article 356 are not absolute. The proclamation must be based on objective and relevant material, and the President’s satisfaction can be questioned if found mala fide or based on extraneous considerations.

Observations of the Court

• Justice P.B. Sawant: Observed that Article 356 must be used sparingly and only when there is a genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery.
• Justice J.S. Verma: Emphasised that democracy is the basic feature of the Constitution and that the will of the majority must be determined on the Assembly floor.
• Justice K. Ramaswamy: Highlighted that federalism and secularism form the core values of India’s constitutional framework.

Significance of the Judgement

The S. R. Bommai case has far-reaching constitutional and political significance. It redefined the contours of Centre–State relations and curbed the misuse of Article 356.
Key contributions include:

1. Strengthening of Federalism:The decision limited the Centre’s power to dismiss state governments arbitrarily, thereby strengthening India’s federal structure.
2. Reinforcement of Democracy:By mandating a floor test, the Court ensured that majority support must be tested democratically within the legislature, not through executive discretion.
3. Judicial Review Affirmed:The judgement entrenched judicial review as a fundamental feature of the Constitution, ensuring accountability of executive decisions.
4. Secularism Recognised as Basic Feature:For the first time, the Supreme Court explicitly declared secularism as part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, prohibiting the use of religion in governance.
5. Prevention of Political Misuse:The decision significantly reduced the political misuse of Article 356, which had been invoked over 90 times between 1950 and 1993, often to dislodge opposition-led governments.
6. Empowerment of State Governments:The ruling provided a constitutional safeguard for state autonomy, ensuring that legitimate state governments cannot be removed without due process.

Aftermath and Implementation

Following the Bommai judgement, the use of Article 356 declined substantially. The Court’s guidelines became the constitutional standard for the imposition of President’s Rule. Subsequent governments and Governors have been constitutionally bound to follow the requirement of a floor test to prove or disprove majority support.
The case has since been cited as the “Magna Carta of Indian Federalism.”