S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1

Bench:

• Justice Kuldip Singh
• Justice P. B. Sawant
• Justice Katikithala Ramaswamy
• Justice S. C. Agarwal
• Justice Yogeshwar Dayal
• Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy
• Justice S. R. Pandian
• Justice A. M. Ahmadi
• Justice J. S. Verma

Facts:

S. R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of Karnataka, leading a Janata Party government. On April 21, 1989, his government was dismissed by the Governor, P. Venkatasubbaiah, on grounds of losing majority due to defections. Bommai sought time to prove his majority on the Assembly floor, but the Governor refused and recommended President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution. Bommai challenged this dismissal in the Supreme Court, questioning the misuse of Article 356 and the extent of judicial review over such proclamations.

Issues:

1. Is the Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 subject to judicial review?
2. Does the President have absolute power to issue a Proclamation under Article 356(1)?
3. Can the validity of a Proclamation be challenged after parliamentary approval?
4. What is the role of the Governor’s report in the issuance of such a Proclamation?
5. Can a dissolved Legislative Assembly be revived if the Proclamation is invalidated?
6. Does the imposition of President’s Rule affect the secular fabric of the Constitution?

Arguments:

Petitioner (S. R. Bommai):

• The dismissal was arbitrary and violated democratic principles.
• The Governor’s refusal to allow a floor test was unjustified.
• Article 356 was misused for political gains, undermining federalism.

Respondent (Union of India):

• The Governor’s decision was based on credible reports of loss of majority.
• The President acted within constitutional powers under Article 356.
• The Proclamation was approved by both Houses of Parliament, validating its legitimacy.

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Justiciability of Article 356 Proclamation: The Supreme Court held that Presidential Proclamations under Article 356 are subject to judicial review. The Court can examine if the Proclamation was based on relevant material or if it was issued malafide.
2. Conditional Power of the President: The President’s power under Article 356 is not absolute but conditional. It must be based on objective material indicating a breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state.
3. Parliamentary Approval and Judicial Review: Even after parliamentary approval, the validity of the Proclamation can be challenged in court. Parliamentary approval does not grant immunity from judicial scrutiny.
4. Governor’s Report: While the Governor’s report can form the basis for the Proclamation, the absence of such a report does not preclude the President from acting under Article 356, provided there is relevant material.
5. Revival of Legislative Assembly: If the Proclamation is declared unconstitutional, the dissolved Legislative Assembly can be revived, restoring the status quo ante.
6. Secularism as a Basic Feature: The Court emphasized that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. State governments pursuing non-secular policies act contrary to constitutional mandates, making them liable to action under Article 356.

Observations:

• The misuse of Article 356 poses a threat to federalism and democracy.
• The floor test is the appropriate method to determine the majority in the Assembly.
• The President should exercise caution and rely on objective material before invoking Article 356.
• Secularism is integral to the Constitution, and any deviation by state governments warrants corrective measures.

Decision:

The Supreme Court set strict guidelines for invoking Article 356, emphasizing its exceptional nature. The Court reinstated governments in cases where Article 356 was misused, reinforcing the importance of floor tests to ascertain majority. This landmark judgment curtailed arbitrary dismissals of state governments, strengthening federalism and the democratic framework.

Important Terms:

1. Article 356: Allows the President to impose President’s Rule in a state under certain conditions.
2. Judicial Review: The power of courts to assess the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions.
3. Floor Test: A procedure to determine if the incumbent government enjoys the majority support of the legislature.
4. Secularism: The principle of separation between government institutions and religious institutions.
5. Federalism: A system of governance where power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units.