S.R. BOMMAI VS UNION OF INDIA (ON 11THMARCH ,1994 )

CASE TITLE

R. BOMMAI VS UNION OF INDIA (ON 11^THMARCH ,1994 )

CASE CITATION

1994 AIR 1918 1994 SCC (3)  1

JT 1994 (2). 215 1994 SCALE  (2) 37

COURT NAME OF THE CASE :

COURT: Supreme Court of India (a nine- judge Constitution Bench)

Judgment delivered: 11^th March 1994

BENCH:

• KULDIP SINGH (J)
• SAWANT , B.
• RAMASWAMY , K .
• AGRAWAL , S . C . (J)
• YOGESHWAR DAYAL(J)
• JEEVAN REDDY ,  B . P .(J)
• PANDIAN , S . R . (J)
• AHMADI , A . M. (J)
• PARTIES INVOLVED :

Petitioner:

R. Bommai:-

1. He was the Chief Minister of Karnataka, and his government was dismissed by the Governor under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the imposition of presedent’s rule in a state.

Respondent :

Union of  Indian :-

• • Representing the Central Government, which had dismissed Bommai’s government, allegedly without proper justification

FACT OF THE CASE :

Background events :-

• In 1989, the Janata Party government headed by S.R. Bommai in Karnataka was dismissed by the Governor on the ground that it had lost majority following defections.
• Bommai challenged the dismissal, claiming that the Governor did not allow him a chance to prove his majority on the floor of the House.

Several other similar dismissals of State governments occurred around the same time in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, and Meghalaya, mainly after a change in government at the Centre.[1]

FACT OF THE CASE :-

S.R. Bommai, the Chief Minister of Karnataka from August 1988 to April 1989, led a Janata Dal government that was dismissed when President’s Rule (Article 356) was imposed in Karnataka on 21st April 1989. This practice of dismissing state governments ruled by opposition parties to the one at the center was common until then.

Bommai’s government was dismissed on grounds of losing majority due to politically motivated defections. Despite presenting a resolution passed by the Janata Dal Legislature Party, Bommai was denied an opportunity to prove his majority in the house by the Governor, leading him to first approach the Karnataka High Court, which dismissed his writ petition.

Subsequently, Bommai moved to the Supreme Court of India, where a nine-judge constitutional bench gave a landmark judgment in March 1994, restricting the arbitrary dismissal of state governments under Article 356. This case highlighted the issue of misuse of Article 356 and its impact on India’s constitutional framework.[2]

Legal issue :-

Whether the President’s Proclamation under Article 356(1) is justiciable (i.e., can be reviewed by courts).

What is the scope of judicial review regarding such Proclamations?

Whether the use of Article 356 in these instances was constitutional.     

ISSUES RAISED :

The SR Bommai case[3] raised questions about the legal and constitutional grounds for proclaiming President’s Rule in a state.

The Supreme Court had to determine the extent of the President’s power to impose President’s Rule under Article 356.

The case addressed whether the imposition of President’s Rule could be challenged in court and subjected to judicial review.

Whether the majority of a government should be determined only through a floor test in the legislature, not based solely on the Governor’s report.

What relief should be granted if a Proclamation under Article 356 is found unconstitutional .

Whether the President’s satisfaction in issuing a Proclamation under Article 356 (imposing President’s Rule) is subject to judicial review.

ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES :

Petitioners’ Arguments (S. R. Bommai and others)

1. Violation of Federal Structure

• The use of Article 356[4] to dismiss elected state governments was an attack on the federal structure of the Constitution.
• The President cannot act arbitrarily; there must be valid constitutional grounds for such action.[5]

2. Misuse of Presidential Power

• The President’s decision to impose President’s Rule was based on political considerations and not on a real “failure of constitutional machinery.”
• Governors acted without giving the state governments a chance to prove their majority in the Assembly.

3. Judicial Review Permitted

• The petitioners argued that the President’s proclamation under Article 356 is not above judicial review.
• Courts have the power to examine whether the constitutional requirements were met before such a proclamation.

4. Floor Test Should Be Mandatory

• If there’s a doubt about a government’s majority, a floor test in the Legislative Assembly should be the only valid way to prove it.
• Dismissal without such a test violates democratic principles.

 Respondent’s Arguments (Union of India)

President’s Satisfaction is Final

• The decision to impose President’s Rule is based on the President’s “subjective satisfaction”.
• It’s a political decision, and courts should not question it.

Presumption of Correctness         

• The President acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers, which must be presumed to be correct and constitutional, unless proven otherwise.

Limited Role of Judiciary

The judiciary cannot examine the materials or reasons behind the President’s decision as it would interfere with executive powers.

• They argued that if judicial review is allowed in such cases, it would paralyze the functioning of the central government.

JUDGMENT AND FINAL DECISION  :

The Supreme Court ruled that the President’s power to impose President’s Rule in a state under Article 356 must be used cautiously. This is consistent with the views of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and recommendations by the Sarkaria Commission.

The Court emphasized that both houses of Parliament must thoroughly review the President’s Proclamation. If not approved by both houses within two months, the proclamation lapses, and the state assembly resumes its functions.

The Supreme Court also made it clear that the proclamation can be subjected to judicial review, meaning that the courts can examine and potentially overturn it if there are legal grounds.

The Court stated that the President’s power to dismiss a state government is not absolute and has limitations. Although Article 356 does not directly mention dissolving the legislature, such powers can be inferred from other related articles.[6]

Overall, the judgment imposed restrictions on the central government’s ability to impose President’s Rule on states. It specified that the President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly until the proclamation is approved by Parliament.

If not approved within two months, the dismissed government and the suspended assembly are revived. The Supreme Court affirmed that the imposition of Article 356 is subject to judicial review.

President’s Proclamation is Subject to Judicial Review:

The Court held that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 is not absolute and can be challenged in court.

The material basis for the Proclamation can be examined to see if it was relevant, rational, and not mala fide.

 Limited Scope for Judicial Intervention:

The Court stated that it will not review the Proclamation if the material is extensive and political in nature, unless the action is patently mala fide or unconstitutional.

Dissolution of Assembly Before Parliamentary Approval is Invalid:

If a Proclamation is issued and the State Assembly is dissolved before Parliament approves it, and if the Proclamation is later struck down, the Assembly must be restored.

FINAL DECISION :

The Proclamations dismissing the governments of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh were upheld as not justiciable due to lack of concrete challenge.

The dismissal of the Karnataka government (led by S.R. Bommai) was declared unconstitutional, as Bommai was not given an opportunity to prove his majority on the floor.

The Meghalaya case was also found to involve improper use of Article 356, but the issue had become academic due to subsequent elections.

LEGAL REASONING:

Nature of Indian Federalism:

• Although India has a quasi-federal structure, the Constitution provides for a clear distribution of powers between the Centre and the States.
• The Court emphasized that States are not mere agents of the Centre and enjoy autonomous status, subject to constitutional limits.

Scope of Article 356:

Article 356 permits the President to impose President’s Rule only if a constitutional breakdown has occurred, i.e., the State Government is unable to function in accordance with the Constitution.

The Court stressed that this power must be exercised sparingly and only as a last resort, not for political convenience.[7]

Judicial Review Permissible:

Even though the President’s decision under Article 356 is based on subjective satisfaction, the existence and relevance of material leading to such satisfaction can be examined by the courts.

Article 74(2) (bar on inquiry into ministerial advice) does not exclude judicial scrutiny of the underlying facts or mala fides.

Secularism is a Basic Feature:

Any State Government acting contrary to the principles of secularism violates the Constitution.

The Court upheld that secularism is part of the basic structure, and such violations could justify the use of Article 356.

Parliamentary Approval Does Not Cure Illegality:

Even if the President’s Proclamation is approved by Parliament, courts can still strike it down if it was unconstitutional.

Consequences of Invalid Proclamation:

If the Proclamation is held unconstitutional after the Assembly is dissolved, the Assembly must be revived.

RATIO DECISION :

The power of the President under Article 356 to impose President’s Rule is subject to judicial review, and the floor of the Legislative Assembly is the only constitutional forum to test the majority of a State Government. Arbitrary or politically motivated use of Article 356 violates the federal structure and democratic principles of the Constitution.

OBSERVATIONS :

• The President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
• The breakdown of constitutional machinery cannot be a subjective satisfaction of the President alone.
• Secularism was held to be a basic feature of the Constitution, and actions violating it could justify the President’s Rule.
• Majority in a State Assembly must be tested on the floor of the House, not through the Governor’s personal reports.

CONCLUSION :

The Court strengthened federalism and limited the misuse of Article 356 by ensuring judicial oversight. It emphasized that democracy and secularism are non-negotiable values in governance.

Reference(S):

[1] Indian Kanoon, S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/363330 (last visited July 29, 2025).

[2] Legal Services India, Case Summary: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, https://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/2486/S.R.-Bommai-v.-Union-of-India.html (last visited July 29, 2025).

[3] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 S.C.C. 1 (India).

[4] INDIA CONST. Art. 356.

[5] PRS Legislative Research, Article 356 of the Constitution, https://prsindia.org/articles-by-prs/article-356-of-the-constitution (last visited July 29, 2025).

[6] Law Times Journal, S.R. Bommai v. Union of India: Landmark Judgment on Federalism, https://lawtimesjournal.in/s-r-bommai-v-union-of-india (last visited July 29, 2025).

[7] iPleaders, S.R. Bommai v. Union of India Case Analysis, https://blog.ipleaders.in/s-r-bommai-v-union-of-india (last visited July 29, 2025).