S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

Case Details

Case Name: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

Citation: AIR 1994 SC 1918; (1994) 3 SCC 1

Court: Supreme Court of India 

Date of Decision: 11 March 1994

Bench Composition: Nine-Judge Constitution Bench 

INTRODUCTION

The case is a landmark judgment that deals with Article 356 of the Constitution of India. This judgment clarified the use and limitation of Article 356. The judgment holds immense significance because it helps us understand the constitutional relationship between the Central and State Governments and reinforces the Basic Structure of the Constitution of India. Article 356 cannot be misused arbitrarily, and the court restricted its use to some extent. Further, it also laid down the powers of the Governor and the President, reflecting that their powers are not unlimited and should be exercised in accordance with constitutional principles, and also supports the principle of the federal structure of India. The judgment was delivered by a Nine-Judge Constitution Bench comprising: Justice Kuldip Singh, Justice P.B Sawant, Justice K. Ramaswamy, Justice S.C. Agrawal, Justice Yogeshwar Dayal, Justice B.P Jeevan Reddy, Justice S. Ratnavel Pandian, Justice A.M. Ahmadi, Justice J.S. Verma, which serves as a guide in disputes between the Centre and State and the misuse of Article 356.

FACTS 

In the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Janata Party was the largest party and formed the government under the leadership of S.R. Bommai, who served as the Chief Minister. In September 1988, the Janata Party and the Lok Dal together merged to form the Janata Dal. Within two days of the merger, the Ministry was expanded by the inclusion of thirteen members, reflecting that a new government had been formed and political changes were already taking place in the State.

Later, K.R. Molakery defected from the party. He submitted not only his own letter but also nineteen letters of other MLAs to the Governor. These letters allegedly stated that the MLAs had withdrawn their support from the Bommai Government, which led the Governor to believe that S.R. Bommai had lost his majority in the Legislative Assembly.

As a result, on 19 April 1989, the Governor submitted a report to the president claiming that defections had taken place within the ruling party. Relying on this report the Governor assumed that S.R. Bommai had lost his majority and concluded that it would be difficult for the Bommai Government to peacefully carry its functions in accordance with the Constitution and recommended that the President should exercise his powers under Article 356.

However, on the very next day, seven out of nineteen MLAs informed the Governor that their signatures had been wrongfully obtained through misrepresentation. On 20 April, 1989, S.R. Bommai and the Law Minister met the Governor and expressly requested him to summon the Assembly and conduct a Floor Test.

But the Governor ignored the request and relied on his earlier conclusion that S.R. Bommai had lost his majority. Acting upon the Governor’s recommendation, the President dismissed the Karnataka Government and imposed President’s Rule, and the Parliament also approved the proclamation.

On 26 April 1989, S.R. Bommai challenged this decision before the Karnataka High Court by filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He argued that he had not been given an opportunity to conduct a Floor Test and prove his majority in the Assembly. 

Meanwhile, similar situations also arose in States of Nagaland, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. But the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition and Central Government also supported the validity of President’s Rule, and the Attorney General relied upon the earlier Supreme Court decisions in support of its stand. Finally, on 11 March 1994, after five long years the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment.

LEGAL ISSUES

1. Whether the President’s rule in six states was constitutionally valid? 
2. Whether the power of President’s rule under Article 356(1) is unlimited?
3. Whether the President and Council of Ministers used Article 356 honestly or there was any political motive behind it?
4. What is the true meaning when President says that the state government is not working in accordance with the Constitution?
5. Whether the power under Article 356 can be subject to Judicial Review?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Argument on behalf of the Petitioner 

1. S.R. Bommai was not given an opportunity to prove his majority through a floor test. S.R. Bommai and the Law Minister placed their concerns before the Governor, but the Governor ignored their request and President’s Rule was imposed.
2. The petitioner’s Lawyer, Soli Sorabjee argued that the power under Article 356 of the Constitution is not unlimited. He stated that Article 356 should only be invoked when there is a constitutional machinery failure in the state and not due to political reasons.
3. The petitioners argued that there was a political motive behind the imposition of President’s Rule and that the Centre violated the principles of democracy by removing an elected government in Karnataka.
4. Sorabjee referred to the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission, which stated that Article 356 should only be used in situations where there is a constitutional machinery failure and should not be misused for political benefits.
5. The petitioners argued that the Governor failed to examine whether S.R. Bommai had actually lost his majority. They argued that they should have been given an opportunity to prove their majority through a floor test. 
6. The petitioners further argued that they were not provided with the materials and documents on the basis of which the President imposed President’s Rule.
7. They also contended that there was a violation of Article 74(2) of the Constitution as the materials and reasons behind the decision were not properly disclosed.

Arguments on behalf of the Defendant

1. The Central Government argued that the petitioner cannot directly challenge the Governor’s report through a writ petition. The Governor, under Article 361 of the Constitution has the immunity for official actions and is not directly answerable before the court.
2. The defendants contended that the President has the power not to disclose the documents before issuing the proclamation. They argued that only the Governor’s report was sufficient to be provided.
3. The defendants argued that the decision of the President was a political decision, and the court cannot interfere in such matters.
4. The defendants further argued that the Governor prepared the report after considering the circumstances prevailing in the state, and the report was valid.
5. The Attorney General contended that the President’s proclamation cannot be judged on the basis of judicial standards.
6. The Central Government argued that the President acted on the advice of the Council of Ministers and that the advice given by the Cabinet cannot be questioned.

COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS

The Court analyzed that although the President has power under Article 356, it is not unlimited and cannot be imposed without proper reasons to remove an elected government. It should only be used in rare situations. The court reasoned that Article 356 is an emergency power and not a normal tool.

The court further analyzed that judicial review is possible under Article 356. The court reasoned that it would not directly replace the decision, but it can check whether the President had relevant facts, whether the decision was based on irrelevant facts. The President is bound by the Constitution.

The court analyzed the interpretation of Article 74(2) and said that the discussions of the Council of Ministers will remain secret, but the court can check whether there was any material behind the decision or not.

The court analyzed that the floor test is very important for proving the majority of the government and is the basic method to determine whether the government had lost its majority.

The court further analyzed that the state government is also an elected government and the Centre cannot use its political power against an elected state government as it would harm the principle of federalism.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court clubbed together all the appeals from different states and delivered a landmark Judgment. The Court held that power under Article 356 is not unlimited and the President cannot remove any government at his own will. This power can only be exercised when the constitutional machinery of a state has failed and only in extraordinary situations.

The court held that whenever the President issues a proclamation under Article 356, it is important that the proclamation is approved by both the Houses of Parliament under Article 356(3). If Parliament does not approve the proclamation within a maximum period of two months, the President’s Rule will come to an end and the State Legislative Assembly will be reactivated.

The court further held that the President’s decision is subject to judicial review. The High Courts and Supreme Court can examine whether the imposition of Article 356 was justified or not. If the decision is based on mala fide intentions or irrelevant facts, the Court can strike it down.

The Court held that both the Centre and the President are bound by the provisions of the Constitution.

The Court further held that although Article 356 does not directly provide for the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, such a power may be implied in certain circumstances. However, this power must not be misused and the constitutional process must be properly followed.

CONCLUSION

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark judgment that helps us understand the complex relationship between the Centre and the State while safeguarding the constitutional principles. It ensures that such a decision cannot be taken solely on the Governor’s opinion. It also ensures that if irrelevant facts are used or there are mala fide intentions behind the decision, the decision can be struck down by the courts ensuring constitutional flexibility with certain limitations.

REFERENCES

Cases

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1918; (1994) 3 SCC 1

Legislation

• Constitution of India.
• Constitution of India, art 74.
• Constitution of India, art 356.
• Constitution of India, art 361.

Reports

Sarkaria Commission, Report of the Commission on Centre-State Relations (1988).