DATE: 11/03/1994
BENCH: Justice J.S. Verma, Justice A.M. Ahmadi, Justice K. Ramaswamy, Justice Yogeshwar Dayal, Justice G.N. Ray, Justice P.B. Sawant, Justice S.C. Agrawal, Justice S. Mohan, and Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy.
BACKGROUND:
The case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) arose against the backdrop of political instability and alleged misuse of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the President to impose President's Rule in states. The case stemmed from the dismissal of several state governments by the Central government on grounds of losing the majority or failing to uphold constitutional principles. In Karnataka, S.R. Bommai, the Chief Minister from the Janata Dal party, faced dismissal after his government was accused of losing its majority due to defections. Despite Bommai’s demand for a floor test to prove his majority, the Governor recommended President's Rule, and the Central government dissolved the Assembly. Similarly, in other states like Nagaland, Meghalaya, and Madhya Pradesh, governments were dismissed on similar grounds. The arbitrary imposition of President's Rule in these cases raised concerns about the erosion of federalism and the overreach of the Union government into state affairs. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, which was tasked with determining the constitutional validity and scope of Article 356, the limits of the Centre’s power, and the judiciary’s role in reviewing the imposition of President's Rule. The case became a landmark judgment on federalism, secularism, and judicial review in India.
FACTS:
The case arose from a series of political events and legal disputes concerning the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. The immediate trigger was the dismissal of the S.R. Bommai-led Janata Dal government in Karnataka on April 21, 1989, by the Governor, P. Venkatasubbaiah, who recommended the dissolution of the state assembly to the President. The dismissal was based on claims that the Bommai government had lost its majority due to large-scale defections. However, Bommai and his party denied the allegations and sought a floor test in the Assembly to prove their majority, which was denied. Instead, the Governor sent a report to the President recommending the imposition of President’s Rule. The Central government, without verifying the claims through a floor test, dissolved the Assembly and imposed President's Rule. Bommai challenged the dismissal before the Karnataka High Court, arguing that the action was unconstitutional and arbitrary. However, the High Court dismissed his plea, holding that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 was not subject to judicial review.
Similar events unfolded in Nagaland, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan, where the Central government, citing political instability and alleged loss of majority, imposed President’s Rule and dissolved the respective state assemblies. In Nagaland, the government was dismissed despite surviving a confidence vote. In Meghalaya, the Assembly was dissolved without giving the Chief Minister an opportunity to prove his majority. In Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, President's Rule was imposed, allegedly due to the communal violence following the Babri Masjid demolition in December 1992. The arbitrary dismissal of these governments, often without verifying the actual majority status through a floor test, raised serious constitutional questions about the misuse of Article 356 and the erosion of federal principles.
The core legal issue in these cases revolved around the scope and limitations of the Centre’s power under Article 356. The affected governments contended that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 could not be immune from judicial review and that the failure to conduct a floor test amounted to a violation of democratic principles. They argued that the arbitrary imposition of President's Rule undermined the federal structure of the Constitution and allowed the Central government to dismiss democratically elected state governments on flimsy grounds. The Union of India, on the other hand, contended that the President’s decision under Article 356 was based on political considerations and hence was beyond the scope of judicial review.
The matter was eventually referred to the Supreme Court, which consolidated the multiple cases into a single hearing. The case became a pivotal constitutional dispute concerning the balance of power between the Centre and the states, the judiciary’s role in reviewing executive decisions, and the protection of federalism and democracy from arbitrary executive action.
ISSUES:
The issues presented before the Court were:
Whether the President's satisfaction under Article 356 was subject to judicial review.
Whether the failure to conduct a floor test before dismissing a state government violated democratic principles.
Whether the Governor’s report alone could be a valid basis for imposing President's Rule.
Whether the arbitrary imposition of President's Rule weakened the federal structure of the Constitution.
Whether the dissolution of state assemblies without adequate justification was constitutionally valid.
Whether secularism formed part of the basic structure of the Constitution and could be a ground for dismissing a government.
Whether remedies and relief were available in cases where a state government was unconstitutionally dismissed.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
Article 356 – Imposition of President's Rule in states.
Article 74 – Aid and advice of the Council of Ministers to the President.
Article 163 – Aid and advice of the Council of Ministers to the Governor.
Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue writs.
Article 32 – Right to constitutional remedies before the Supreme Court.
Article 14 – Right to equality (protection against arbitrary executive action).
Article 21 – Right to life and liberty (implication of due process in dismissing governments).
Article 365 – Consequences of failure of a state to comply with or give effect to Union directives.
Article 131 – Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Centre-State disputes.
Article 142 – Supreme Court’s power to pass orders for complete justice.
CASES CITED:
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, (1977) 3 SCC 592.
Kehar Singh v. Union of India, (1989) 1 SCC 204.
A.K. Roy v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 271.
Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, (1980) 3 SCC 625.
Gujarat Assembly Election Matter, (1970) 2 SCC 228.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 651.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1.
Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684.
Waman Rao v. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362.
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, 1975 Supp SCC 1.
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
Sankari Prasad Singh Deo v. Union of India, AIR 1951 SC 458.
Golaknath v. State of Punjab, (1967) 2 SCR 762.
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225.
R.C. Cooper v. Union of India, (1970) 1 SCC 248.
JUDGEMENT WITH FEASONING:
The Supreme Court of India, in a historic nine-judge bench ruling, laid down significant principles regarding the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356. The Court held that the President’s satisfaction in imposing President's Rule is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. It ruled that the arbitrary dismissal of state governments without proper justification or without conducting a floor test to verify the loss of majority is unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that federalism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and the Centre cannot misuse Article 356 to dissolve duly elected state governments.
The Court also ruled that in cases where President's Rule is imposed unconstitutionally, the dissolution of the state assembly can be reversed, and the dismissed government can be reinstated. It laid down that the Governor’s report alone cannot be the basis for imposing President’s Rule, and a floor test is the appropriate method to determine whether a government has lost its majority. The judgment further affirmed that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution, and any state government acting against secular principles could be dismissed.
RELIEFS GRANTED:
The Supreme Court reinstated the Karnataka Assembly, which had been unconstitutionally dismissed.
The Court held that the dismissals in Nagaland and Meghalaya were unconstitutional, but since fresh elections had already been conducted, no further relief was granted in those cases.
The Court established the principle that judicial review applies to Article 356 proclamations, allowing courts to invalidate unconstitutional dismissals of state governments.
The ruling imposed limitations on the Centre’s power to invoke Article 356, ensuring it could not be misused for political gains.
REASONING:
The Supreme Court of India provided a detailed and nuanced reasoning while delivering its landmark judgment, which significantly shaped the interpretation and application of Article 356 of the Constitution. The Court held that federalism is an essential feature of the Constitution and part of its basic structure, which cannot be destroyed or tampered with by arbitrary executive action. It reasoned that the arbitrary use of Article 356 by the Centre to dismiss democratically elected state governments would undermine the federal character and violate the spirit of democracy. The Court emphasized that although India follows a quasi-federal structure; the states are not administrative units of the Centre but are constitutionally autonomous entities. Therefore, the Centre’s power under Article 356 had to be exercised with caution and should not be used as a political tool to destabilize state governments.
The Court further held that judicial review is an integral part of the Constitution’s basic structure, ensuring that the exercise of executive power is subject to legal scrutiny. It rejected the government’s argument that the President's satisfaction under Article 356 was beyond judicial review, stating that the courts have the power to examine whether the proclamation of President's Rule was made in mala fide, arbitrary, or unconstitutional circumstances. The Court ruled that the Governor’s report alone cannot be the basis for dismissing a state government, as it may not always reflect the true majority status. Instead, the Court emphasized the necessity of a floor test in the Assembly as the only appropriate and objective method to ascertain whether the government has lost its majority. It stated that the failure to conduct a floor test before imposing President's Rule would make the proclamation suspect and open to judicial scrutiny.
The bench also recognized secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution, reasoning that any state government acting against secular principles could be dismissed. The Court ruled that if a state government promotes religious intolerance, discrimination, or communal violence, it would violate the secular fabric of the Constitution, warranting its dismissal under Article 356. However, the Centre’s power to impose President’s Rule could not be based on political expediency or arbitrary assessments. The Court emphasized that floor tests and verifiable evidence of breakdown in constitutional machinery were necessary to justify the imposition of President's Rule.
Finally, the Court laid down guidelines to prevent misuse of Article 356, holding that unconstitutional proclamations of President's Rule could be struck down by the courts. It ruled that dissolution of a state assembly under an unconstitutional proclamation could be reversed, and the dismissed government could be reinstated. The Court made it clear that the power under Article 356 is meant to address genuine constitutional breakdowns, not to serve as a tool for political convenience. This reasoning significantly curtailed the Centre’s discretionary power, safeguarding federalism, democracy, and judicial oversight.
CRITICISMS:
The judgment in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), while celebrated for strengthening federalism and judicial review, faced several criticisms. One major critique was that the Court did not make floor tests mandatory before imposing President's Rule, leaving room for continued misuse despite judicial oversight. Additionally, the reliefs granted were seen as inadequate, as the Court failed to reinstate the dismissed governments in Nagaland and Meghalaya, even though their dismissal was declared unconstitutional. This was viewed as a missed opportunity to reinforce accountability.
Critics also pointed out the ambiguity in the Court’s guidelines on secularism. While the ruling recognized secularism as part of the basic structure, it did not clearly define the threshold for its violation, raising concerns about inconsistent application. Furthermore, the judgment overlooked the role of Governors, whose partisan conduct often triggered the misuse of Article 356. The absence of clear accountability measures for Governors was seen as a flaw. Lastly, some viewed the decision as judicial overreach, arguing that frequent court interventions in political matters could disrupt the separation of powers. Despite these criticisms, the Bommai ruling remained a landmark precedent, although its practical impact on preventing the misuse of President's Rule was questioned.
ANALYSIS:
The case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) is a landmark judgment that significantly influenced Indian constitutional law, particularly regarding the scope and limitations of Article 356. The Supreme Court's decision in this case reaffirmed the principles of federalism, democracy, and judicial oversight. The Court ruled that the imposition of President's Rule cannot be arbitrary and is subject to judicial review. This judgment established that the President's satisfaction under Article 356 is not absolute, ensuring that the Centre cannot misuse its powers to dissolve democratically elected state governments on political grounds. By holding that floor tests are the most appropriate and objective method to determine the majority status of a government, the Court introduced a safeguard against the wrongful dismissal of state governments.
The case also reinforced the basic structure doctrine by holding that federalism and secularism are essential features of the Constitution. The Court's recognition that a state government acting against secular principles could be dismissed under Article 356 highlighted the importance of protecting India's secular fabric. However, the judgment also made it clear that the Centre could not arbitrarily use secularism as a pretext to remove a government without credible evidence of constitutional breakdown. By ruling that unconstitutional proclamations of President's Rule could be struck down and dismissed governments reinstated, the Court created a strong precedent for judicial intervention in cases of executive overreach.
While the judgment strengthened constitutional safeguards, it also faced criticism for not going far enough in preventing misuse of Article 356. The failure to make floor tests mandatory before imposing President's Rule left room for continued political exploitation. Additionally, the Court's refusal to reinstate the dismissed governments in Nagaland and Meghalaya, despite declaring their dismissals unconstitutional, was viewed as a missed opportunity to reinforce accountability. The absence of specific guidelines to regulate the conduct of Governors, whose partisan actions often triggered the misuse of Article 356, was another shortcoming.
Overall, the Bommai judgment was a watershed moment in Indian constitutional history. It laid down crucial principles limiting the arbitrary exercise of Article 356, protected the federal structure, and strengthened judicial oversight over executive decisions. However, its impact was somewhat diluted by the absence of mandatory floor tests and the failure to provide full relief in all cases. Despite these limitations, the judgment remains a cornerstone of Indian constitutional jurisprudence, safeguarding democracy and federalism from executive overreach.
info@adhwaitha.com
