BENCH: Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, Justice J.S. Verma, Justice K. Ramaswamy, Justice S.C. Agrawal, Justice S. Mohan, Justice B.N. Kirpal, Justice S.P. Bharucha, Justice M.H. Kania, & Justice S. Saghir Ahmad.
The present case involved the dismissal of state governments in Karnataka, Meghalaya, and Nagaland by the central government under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows for the imposition of President’s Rule in states. The central government cited the breakdown of constitutional machinery in these states as the reason for the dismissal. S.R. Bommai, the then Chief Minister of Karnataka, challenged the dismissal, claiming it was politically motivated and violated the Constitution. The issue revolved around the arbitrary use of Article 356 and whether such decisions were subject to judicial review.
Bommai argued that the central government's actions were unconstitutional and based on subjective political considerations rather than objective facts. He contended that the imposition of President’s Rule should be based on solid evidence of a failure of governance, not on political vendettas or unfounded claims of instability. The case raised crucial questions about the limits of central authority in dismissing state governments and the protection of federalism under the Indian Constitution.
ISSUE:
In the pertinent case, the primary issues before the Supreme Court were whether the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution is subject to judicial review, and if so, to what extent. The case questioned the absolute power of the central government in dissolving state governments and whether such decisions should be based on objective facts rather than subjective political considerations. Additionally, the Court examined whether the subjective satisfaction of the President in invoking Article 356 is justiciable or if it remains beyond the purview of the judiciary. These issues were central to ensuring that the federal structure of India is protected from arbitrary dismissal of state governments.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court ruled that the power to impose President’s Rule under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The Court emphasized that the central government's decision to dismiss a state government and dissolve its legislature must be based on objective material, not on subjective satisfaction or political motives.
The reasoning behind the judgment was that the imposition of President’s Rule is a serious matter, affecting the federal structure of the Constitution, and should not be used arbitrarily. The Court held that the President’s decision could be challenged in court if it was found to be based on inadequate or politically motivated reasons. It stressed that the Governor’s report, which often triggers the imposition of President’s Rule, should be grounded in facts and the actual failure of constitutional machinery in a state. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the test of majority in the state assembly should be conducted through a floor test, and not solely on the basis of the Governor’s subjective opinion. This judgment reinforced the principles of federalism, ensuring that state governments are not arbitrarily dismissed by the central government without valid reasons.
ANALYSIS:
This was a significant judgment that reinforced the federal structure of India by limiting the arbitrary use of Article 356, which allows the central government to impose President’s Rule in states. The Court’s decision emphasized that the power to dissolve state governments is not absolute and must be based on objective facts, not political considerations or subjective satisfaction. By subjecting the imposition of President's Rule to judicial review, the Court ensured that such drastic measures could be scrutinized for fairness and constitutional validity. This ruling safeguarded the autonomy of state governments, ensuring that their dismissal could only occur under legitimate circumstances where there is a clear failure of governance.
The case also clarified the role of the Governor and the importance of a floor test in the state assembly to verify the majority of the government, rather than relying solely on the Governor’s report. This landmark decision upheld the spirit of cooperative federalism by preventing the misuse of Article 356 for political gain and ensuring that state governments cannot be dissolved without justifiable reasons. The judgment not only protected the rights of the states but also reinforced the checks and balances within India's political system, ensuring a more balanced relationship between the central and state governments.
info@adhwaitha.com
