S. R. Bommai v.
Union of India (1994)
By: Modit Yadav
URN: 2571155
Course: B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) 2025-30
Introduction
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) is a landmark Supreme Court case that curtailed
the misuse of Article 356 (President's Rule) to dismiss state governments. The 9-judge
bench ruled that federalism is part of the basic structure, the floor test is the only
method to test majority, and presidential proclamations are subject to judicial review.
Facts of the Case
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) 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.
Issues Raised
a) The SR Bommai case raised questions about the legal and constitutional grounds
for proclaiming President’s Rule in a state.
b) The Supreme Court had to determine the extent of the President’s power to impose
President’s Rule under Article 356.
c) The case addressed whether the imposition of President’s Rule could be challenged
in court and subjected to judicial review.
Judgment of the Supreme Court
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) 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.
d) 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.
e) 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.
f) 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.
g) The judgment also mandated that whenever there is doubt about the majority of a
government, the appropriate course of action is to conduct a floor test in the Assembly,
rather than dismissing the government outright.
Detailed Analysis of Article 356
a) Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, often referred to as President’s Rule, is a
provision that allows the central government to take direct control of a state’s
administration under certain circumstances. This article is based on Section 93 of the
Government of India Act, 1935.
b) President’s Rule can be imposed when the President is convinced, either through a
report from the state’s Governor or through other means, that the state government is
unable to function according to constitutional provisions. Additionally, it can be
invoked if a state fails to comply with directions from the Union government under
Article 365.
c) During President’s Rule, the state government is suspended, and the central
government administers the state through the Governor. This imposition requires
parliamentary approval within two months and can initially last for six months,
extendable up to three years with periodic parliamentary consent every six months.
d) The 44th Amendment to the Constitution introduced constraints on extending
President’s Rule beyond one year, allowing it only in the case of a national emergency
or if the Election Commission certifies the necessity due to difficulties in conducting
state assembly elections.
e) The Sarkaria Commission, in its 1988 report on Centre-state relations, and the
landmark Supreme Court judgment in the SR Bommai case (1994), provided clarity on
the proper and improper use of Article 356.
f) Proper use includes scenarios like a hung assembly where no party secures a
majority, the resignation of a ministry without the possibility of forming an alternative
majority government, internal subversion, deliberate constitutional violations, or
physical breakdowns endangering state security.
g) On the other hand, improper use encompasses instances where the Ministry resigns
without exploring alternative options, the imposition of President’s Rule without
allowing a majority test, significant defeat in Lok Sabha elections leading to
President’s Rule, internal disturbances not amounting to subversion or breakdown,
allegations of maladministration without proper warning, misuse for intra-party issues,
and other irrelevant purposes.
h) The SR Bommai case emphasized that the power under Article 356 must be
exercised with caution and is subject to judicial review, ensuring the protection of
federal principles and preventing arbitrary dismissal of state governments by the
central government.
Conclusion
The S. R. Bommai case is a landmark judgment that has had a profound impact on the
political and constitutional landscape of India. By setting strict guidelines for the use
of Article 356, the Supreme Court ensured that the spirit of federalism and democracy
is upheld in India.