S.R. Bommai v Union of India and Others

S.R. Bommai v Union of India ([1994] 2 SCR 644; AIR 1994 SC 1918) is a landmark case in Indian constitutional law, addressing the misuse of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the imposition of President’s Rule in states. Decided on March 11, 1994, by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, this case set significant precedents in Centre-State relations, judicial review of Presidential actions, and the principle of federalism.

Background of tS.R. Bommai v Union of India and Others

Article 356 and President’s Rule:

• Article 356 empowers the President to impose President’s Rule if a state government cannot function in accordance with constitutional provisions.
• When imposed, the state’s elected government is dismissed, and governance is taken over by the Governor, acting on behalf of the President.
• The provision was intended for exceptional circumstances but had been widely misused for political purposes before the Bommai judgement.

Historical Context:

• B.R. Ambedkar, in the Constituent Assembly debates, referred to Article 356 as a “dead letter” and emphasised its sparing use.
• Despite this caution, Article 356 had been invoked over 90 times before the Bommai case, often under dubious circumstances to dismiss opposition-led state governments.

Political Scenario in Karnataka:

• S.R. Bommai, a member of the Janata Dal, became the Chief Minister of Karnataka in 1988.
• In April 1989, 19 MLAs withdrew support from the Bommai government, prompting the Governor to recommend President’s Rule without allowing Bommai to prove his majority through a floor test.
• The central government imposed the President’s Rule, leading Bommai to challenge the dismissal in court.

Facts of S.R. Bommai v Union of India and Others

1. Karnataka: The Governor received letters from 19 MLAs withdrawing support from the ruling party. Despite Bommai’s request for a floor test to prove his majority, the Governor recommended dismissal. President’s Rule was imposed on April 21, 1989, and the Karnataka government was dissolved.
2. Legal Proceedings: Bommai filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, challenging the proclamation. The High Court upheld the proclamation, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court.
3. Similar Cases in Other States:
   • Meghalaya (1991): The government was dismissed based on the Governor’s report.
   • Nagaland (1988): The government was dissolved without allowing the Chief Minister to prove his majority.
   • Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh (1992): BJP-led governments were dismissed after the Babri Masjid demolition on allegations of non-secular actions.

Legal Issues

The issues raised in S.R. Bommai v Union of India and Others were:

• Existence of Material: Was there sufficient material to justify the President’s satisfaction that the state could not be governed according to the Constitution?
• Presidential Power: Does the President have unfettered discretion under Article 356(1)?
• Judicial Review: Are proclamations under Article 356 subject to judicial review? If so, to what extent?
• Secularism: Can a state government be dismissed for engaging in non-secular actions?

Arguments

Appellants (Bommai and Others)

• Denial of Floor Test: The Governor acted arbitrarily by denying Bommai the opportunity to prove his majority on the Assembly floor.
• Lack of Material: The Governor’s recommendation was based on unverified information and did not justify the imposition of President’s Rule.
• Political Motivation: The proclamation was politically motivated, aiming to centralise power and weaken opposition-led state governments.
• Violation of Federalism: Arbitrary dismissal of state governments undermines the federal structure of the Constitution.

Respondents (Union of India)

• Presidential Satisfaction: The President’s satisfaction under Article 356 is subjective and beyond judicial scrutiny.
• Non-Secular Actions: State governments engaging in non-secular activities violate the Constitution and justify dismissal under Article 356.
• Limits of Judicial Review: Courts cannot assess the adequacy of material or advice provided to the President.

S.R. Bommai v Union of India and Others Judgement

The nine-judge bench delivered a landmark judgement of S.R. Bommai v Union of India and Others, laying down comprehensive guidelines to prevent the misuse of Article 356.

Judicial Review of Article 356

Proclamations issued under Article 356 are subject to judicial review. The courts are empowered to examine three key aspects:

• Whether there is sufficient material justifying the proclamation.
• Whether the material is relevant to the situation.
• Whether there was any malafide intention in invoking Article 356.

Floor Test

The majority of a government must be determined on the floor of the Legislative Assembly. Decisions based solely on the Governor’s subjective opinion are unconstitutional. Denying the opportunity for a floor test to prove majority is a violation of constitutional principles.

Limits on Presidential Power

The President’s authority under Article 356 is not absolute. Irreversible actions, such as dissolving the state legislature, must not be taken before obtaining Parliament’s approval for the proclamation.

Secularism

Secularism is a fundamental feature of the Indian Constitution. State governments that violate secular principles can be dismissed under Article 356 to uphold the Constitution’s secular character.

Guidelines for the Use of Article 356

Article 356 should be invoked sparingly and only in cases where there is a genuine constitutional breakdown, not for administrative failures. Before recommending President’s Rule, the Governor must explore all possible options to form an alternative government in the state.

Principles Established by the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai v Union of India

The Supreme Court, in its landmark judgement in S.R. Bommai vs Union of India, provided a framework to curtail the misuse of Article 356, ensuring that it aligns with constitutional principles and safeguards the federal structure.

Guidelines for the Proper Use of Article 356

• Testing the Majority: The strength of the Council of Ministers must be determined on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, not through the Governor’s subjective assessment.
• Communication and Warning: The central government should notify the state about its concerns and provide it with an opportunity to respond, typically allowing a week to address the issues.
• Judicial Review: Although courts cannot challenge the advice provided by the Council of Ministers to the President, they can examine the material that formed the basis for the President’s satisfaction. Judicial review is limited to three key questions:
  • Was there any material backing the proclamation?
  • Was the material relevant to the situation?
  • Was the proclamation made with malafide intent or improper motives?
• Presidential Powers Under Article 356(3): The President must not take irreversible actions, such as dissolving the Legislative Assembly, until the proclamation is approved by Parliament. Dissolution of the Assembly should be considered only after both Houses of Parliament have validated the proclamation.
• Breakdown of Machinery: Article 356 should only be invoked in cases of a breakdown of the constitutional machinery, not due to administrative issues or inefficiencies.
• Restrained Use: The article must be used sparingly, as its excessive or arbitrary application risks undermining the balance between the central and state governments. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar had envisioned this provision as a “dead letter,” meant only for extraordinary situations.

Proper and Improper Scenarios for Invoking Article 356

Appropriate Scenarios for Imposition of President’s Rule

• Hung Assembly: After general elections, no party secures a majority, and no coalition is viable.
• Refusal to Form a Government: A party or coalition with a majority in the Assembly declines to form a government, and no alternative is available.
• Resignation of the Ministry: If a ministry resigns following its defeat in the Assembly and no other party is able or willing to form a government.
• Defiance of Constitutional Directions: When a state government disregards constitutional directions issued by the central government.
• Internal Subversion: When a state government deliberately acts against the Constitution, incites a violent revolt, or undermines the rule of law.
• Physical Breakdown: When the state government refuses to fulfil its constitutional obligations, jeopardising the security of the state.

Inappropriate Scenarios for Imposition of President’s Rule

• Failure to Explore Alternatives: Imposing President’s Rule without considering the possibility of forming an alternative government.
• Avoiding a Floor Test: Relying on the Governor’s assessment of legislative support without allowing the Assembly to test the ministry’s majority.
• Electoral Defeat in Lok Sabha: Dismissing a state government solely because its party performed poorly in general elections, as seen in 1977 and 1980.
• Administrative Failures: Internal disturbances or allegations of maladministration, corruption, or financial challenges are insufficient grounds for invoking Article 356.
• Lack of Prior Warning: Imposing President’s Rule without issuing prior warnings or allowing the state time to rectify the situation, except in cases of urgent and grave consequences.
• Intra-Party Conflicts: Using Article 356 to resolve internal disputes within the ruling party or for purposes unrelated to constitutional breakdown.

Conclusion

The S.R. Bommai v Union of India case is a cornerstone in Indian constitutional law, significantly curbing the misuse of Article 356. By asserting judicial review, emphasising the importance of floor tests, and strengthening federal principles, the judgement has had a lasting impact on Centre-State relations. It reinforces the constitutional balance, ensuring that the extraordinary powers under Article 356 are exercised judiciously and sparingly, preserving the democratic and federal character of India.