S. R. Bommai Union of India ( 2 SCR 644 : AIR 1994 SC 1918 : (1994)3 SCC1) is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of India, where the Court discussed at length provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and related issues. This case had a huge impact on Centre-State Relations. The judgement attempted to curb blatant misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which allowed President's rule to be imposed over state governments. S. R. Bommai, former Chief Minister of Karnataka, is widely remembered as the champion for this landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, considered one of the most quoted verdicts in the country's political history.
Background (Article 356 and President’s Rule) Article 356 allows the Central Government to impose President’s Rule in a State. When this happens, the elected State government and its Council of Ministers are dismissed, and the Governor (appointed by the President) takes direct control. This goes against the federal nature of India’s Constitution, where power is meant to be shared between Centre and States, and also weakens democracy by suspending an elected government.
Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, during the Constituent Assembly debates, had called Article 356 a “dead letter” and hoped it would rarely be used. He suggested that the President should first warn the State, and if needed, call for fresh elections, using Article 356 only as a last resort.
However, before the S. R. Bommai judgment, Article 356 was frequently misused by the Centre to remove State governments led by rival parties. It was invoked more than 90 times, often on doubtful grounds, making it one of the most controversial provisions of the Constitution.
The facts S. R. Bommai v. Union of India came before the bench of 9 judges (consisting of Kuldip Singh, P. B. Sawant, Katikithala Ramaswamy, S. C. Agarwal, Yogeshwar Dayal, B. P. Jeevan Reddy, S. R. Pandian, A. M. Ahmadi, J. S. Verma) under the following circumstances:
Karnataka
The Janata Party being the majority party in the Karnataka State Legislature had formed Government under the leadership of S. R. Bommai. In September 1988, the Janata Party and Lok Dal merged into a new party called Janata Dal. The Ministry was expanded with addition of 13 members. Within two days thereafter, K.R. Molakery, a legislator of Janata Dal defected from the party. He presented a letter to the Governor Pendekanti Venkatasubbaiah along with 19 letters, allegedly signed by legislators supporting the Ministry, withdrawing their support. As a result, on 19 April, the Governor sent a report to the President stating therein there were dissensions and defections in the ruling party. He further stated that in view of the withdrawal of the support by the said legislators, the chief Minister, Bommai did not command a majority in the Assembly and, hence, it was inappropriate under the Constitution, to have the State administered by an Executive consisting of Council of Ministers which did not command the majority in the state assembly. He, therefore, recommended to the President that he should exercise power under Article 356(1). However, on the next day seven out of the nineteen legislators who had allegedly written the said letters to the Governor sent letters to him complaining that their signatures were obtained on the earlier letters by misrepresentation and affirmed their support to the Ministry. The Chief Minister and his Law Minister met the Governor the same day and informed him about the decision to summon the Assembly, even by bringing forward the scheduled session, to prove the confidence of assembly in his Ministry. To the same effect, he sent a telex message to the President. The Governor however sent yet another report to the President on the same day i.e., 20-4-1989, and stated that the Chief Minister had lost the confidence of the majority in the House and repeated his earlier request for action under Article 356(1). On that very day, the President issued the Proclamation in question with the recitals already referred to above. The Proclamation was, thereafter approved by the Parliament as required by Article 356(3).
A writ petition was filed on 26 April 1989 challenging the validity of the proclamation. A special bench of 3 judges of Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Meghalaya
On 11 October 1991 the president issued a proclamation under Article 356(1) dismissing the government of Meghalaya and dissolving the legislative assembly. The Proclamation stated that the President was satisfied on the basis of the report from the Governor and other information received by him that the situation had arisen in which the Government of the State could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The Government was dismissed and the Assembly was dissolved accordingly.
Nagaland
On 7 August 1988, the president issued the proclamation on the basis of Governor Report and dismissed the Government of Nagaland thus dissolving the Legislative assembly. Vamuzo, leader of opposition party, challenged the validity of Proclamation in Gauhati High Court. A Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Hansaria, J. heard the petition. The Bench differed on the effect and operation of Article 74 (Constitution of India)(2) and hence the matter was referred to the third Judge. But before the third learned judge could hear the matter, the Union of India led by Rajiv Gandhi's Congress Party moved this Court for grant of special leave which was granted and the proceedings in the High Court were stayed.
Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh
On account of the Babri Masjid demolition, communal riots spread out in the entire country. The Central Government under the leadership of Shri P V Narsimharao of the Congress party banned RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal. The Central Government dismissed the BJP Governments of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. As a result, on 15 December 1992, the president issued the proclamation under Article 356 dismissing the State Governments and dissolving the Legislative Assemblies of Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan. The validity of these proclamations was challenged by the Writs in the appropriate High Courts. The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the petition, but writ petition relating to Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh were withdrawn to Supreme Court.
All the above said petition contained similar question of law and therefore they were heard conjointly by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The arguments in the S. R. Bommai’s case commenced in the first week of October 1993 and were concluded in the last week of December 1993.
The contentions
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India raised serious question of law relating to Proclamation of President's Rule and dissolution of Legislative assemblies according to Article 356 of the Constitution of India.
The first and most important question which the Supreme Court had to determine was whether the Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 was justiciable and if so to what extent.
The second contention was whether the President has unfettered powers to issue Proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution.
It was contended that since the Proclamation under Article 356(1) would be issued by the President on the advice of the Council of Ministers given under Article 74(1) of the Constitution and since Clause (2) of the said Article bars inquiry into the question whether any, and if so, what advice was tendered by Ministers to the President, judicial review of the reasons which led to the issuance of the Proclamation also stands barred. Whether the Legislature dissolved by the Presidents proclamation can be revived if the president proclamation is set aside. Whether the validity of the Proclamation issued under Article 356(1) can be challenged even after it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament under Article 356(3).
It was also contended that whether any relief's can be granted when the validity of proclamation is challenged and whether the court can grant an interim stay against holding the fresh election.
Whether a president can dissolve the legislature without having obtained the approval of both the Houses of the Legislature. It was contended that Secularism being a basic feature of the Constitution, a State government can be dismissed if it is guilty of nonsecular acts.
The principles laid down by Supreme Court The Supreme Court laid down certain guidelines so as to prevent the misuse of Article 356 of the constitution. The majority enjoyed by the Council of Ministers shall be tested on the floor of the House. Centre should give a warning to the state and a time period of one week to reply. The court cannot question the advice tendered by the CoMs to the President but it can question the material behind the satisfaction of the President. Hence, Judicial Review will involve three questions only: Is there any material behind the proclamation Is the material relevant. Was there any malafide use of power. If there is improper use of Article 356 then the court will provide remedy. Under Article 356(3) it is the limitation on the powers of the President. Hence, the president shall not take any irreversible action until the proclamation is approved by the Parliament i.e. he shall not dissolve the assembly. Article 356 is justified only when there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery and not administrative machinery
Article 356 shall be used sparingly by the center, otherwise it is likely to destroy the constitutional structure between the center and the states. Even Bhimrao Ambedkar envisaged it to remain a 'dead letter' in the constitution.
Based on the report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre–State Relations(1988), the Supreme Court in Bommai case (1994) enlisted the situations where the exercise of power under Article 356 could be proper or improper.
Imposition of President's Rule in a state would be proper in the following situations:
Where after general elections to the assembly, no party secures a majority, that is, Hung Assembly. Where the party having a majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry and the governor cannot find a coalition ministry commanding a majority in the assembly. Where a ministry resigns after its defeat in the assembly and no other party is willing or able to form a ministry commanding a majority in the assembly. Where a constitutional direction of the Central government is disregarded by the state government. Internal subversion where, for example, a government is deliberately acting against the Constitution and the law or is fomenting a violent revolt. Physical breakdown where the government willfully refuses to discharge its constitutional obligations endangering the security of the state.
The imposition of President's Rule in a state would be improper under the following situations: Where a ministry resigns or is dismissed on losing majority support in the assembly and the governor recommends imposition of President's Rule without probing the possibility of forming an alternative ministry. Where the governor makes his own assessment of the support of a ministry in the assembly and recommends imposition of President's Rule without allowing the ministry to prove its majority on the floor of the Assembly. Where the ruling party enjoying majority support in the assembly has suffered a massive defeat in the general elections to the Lok Sabha such as in 1977 and 1980. Internal disturbances not amounting to internal subversion or physical breakdown. Maladministration in the state or allegations of corruption against the ministry or stringent financial exigencies of the state. Where the state government is not given prior warning to rectify itself except in case of extreme urgency leading to disastrous consequences.