S. R. BOMMAI V. UNION OF INDIA 1994 (3) SCC 1

R. BOMMAI V. UNION OF INDIA 1994 (3) SCC 1

FACTS

In a period when the Janata Dal party held power, with S.R. Bommai serving as the Chief Minister of the state, their governance spanned from August 1988 to April 1989. However, their administration was terminated by the State's Governor on the grounds that the Chief Minister had lost his majority due to a significant number of defections. Subsequently, President's Rule was imposed in the state, as authorized by Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. The Governor, P. Venakatasubbaiah, submitted a report to the President, indicating internal dissensions and defections within the ruling party, which justified the imposition of the President's Rule. Article 356 empowers the President to take control of a state's governance upon receiving such a report from the Governor or if the President deems there to be a breakdown in the state's constitutional machinery.

S.R. Bommai sought to demonstrate his majority in the legislative assembly by submitting a resolution passed by the Janata Dal Legislature to the Governor. However, his request was denied, prompting him to file a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, which ruled against him. Consequently, he approached the Supreme Court to seek a resolution of his case.

 

ISSUES:

• Whether the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356 was justified.
• Whether the President possessed unfettered authority to declare an emergency under Article 356(1).
• Whether the proclamation under Article 356 was subject to Judicial Review under Article 13.

 

JUDGMENT:

• The Supreme Court, in its judgment, interpreted Article 356 of the Indian Constitution and outlined the grounds and prerequisites that must be met before President's Rule can be imposed in a state. Article 356(1)(a) empowers the President to assume executive powers of the state, while Article 356(1)(b) allows the President to declare that the state's legislature will be exercised by Parliament. Additionally, Article 356(1)(c) grants the President the authority to make necessary incidental and consequential provisions to effect the objectives of the proclamation.
• Clause 2 of Article 356 specifies that a proclamation can be revoked or altered by a subsequent proclamation. Article 356(3) mandates that such a proclamation, unless revoked, must be approved by both houses of Parliament within two months of its introduction. If not revoked, it ceases to be in effect six months from its issuance.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the power of the President under Article 356 is subject to Judicial Review. Article 74(2), which safeguards government advice from court scrutiny, was interpreted broadly. The court held that while the courts cannot request the disclosure of advice given by the council of ministers, they are entitled to review the materials on which such advice is based, as it falls within the scope of Article 74(2) – ensuring that the satisfaction for imposing President's Rule is valid.
• The Court clarified that the President does not possess the authority to dissolve the Legislative Assembly of a state; Article 356(1)(c) merely allows suspension of its functions. Dissolution requires the approval of both houses of Parliament, ensuring a system of checks and balances on the President's powers.

 

SIGNIFICANCE:

This case marked the end of the arbitrary dismissal of state governments by the central government. Previously, political parties had used this constitutional provision to gain political advantages and settle scores with opposition parties. The Bommai verdict significantly curtailed this practice.

The verdict also emphasized that the test of a government's majority should be conducted on the floor of the Legislative Assembly and should not be subject to the Governor's opinion. While this case did not involve a constitutional amendment, it applied the concept of the basic structure doctrine.

The Supreme Court ruled that state government policies that went against a fundamental element of the Constitution's basic structure could be a valid reason for the central government to invoke Article 356 and take control of the state.