S.R. BOMMAI JUDGEMENT (1994)

Posted 15 Apr 2024

4 min read

Why in the news?

S.R. Bommai's judgement (1994) of the Supreme Court (SC) completes 30 years.

About S. R. Bommai (SRB) v. Union of India (UOI),1994 Judgment

In 1989, the Central government dismissed SRB’s government in Karnataka under Article 356 of the Constitution and President’s Rule was imposed.
A nine-judge bench of the SC interpreted Article 356 of the Constitution to define the contours of the proclamation of President’s rule.

About Article 356

State Emergency is also known as President's Rule or Constitutional Emergency. The Constitution does not use the word 'emergency' for this situation.
Article 356 finds inspiration in Section 93 of the Government of India Act 1935.
Ground to declare: Based on the report from the Governor of a State or otherwise, if the President is satisfiedthat a situation has arisen in which the government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
Validity: The President’s Rule is valid for two months unless Parliament extends it for up to six months.
- Extensions beyond a year are only permitted in a national security emergency or if the Election Commission certifies that holding assembly elections is difficult.
- Even then, the limit for the President’s Rule is three years.

Key Questions in SRB’s Case

One, whether proclamations of the President’s Rule were justiciable (liable to judicial review court).
Two, the scope and limits of the President’s powers under Article 356.
- The Constitution is silent on what constitutes a failure of constitutional machinery making the provision vulnerable to misuse.
Three, what are the consequences if the Court hold the proclamation of the President’s Rule invalid even after Parliament has given its approval.

Bommai judgement and Key Principles laid down:

Judicial Review: SC declared, presidential proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review on substantial grounds.
- No restriction on the court from examining the material based on which the President formed his satisfaction.
- SC or HC can strike down the Proclamation if it is mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds.
Limits of the President’s powers: The verdict concluded that the power of the President to dismiss a state government is not absolute. The president should exercise the power only after his proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
- Till then the President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly by suspending the provisions of the Constitution relating to the Legislative Assembly.
Consequences of invalidation of President’s Rule:
- Both the Council of Ministers and the Legislative Assembly should stand restored.
- The validity of the acts done, orders passed and laws, made during the period of operation of the proclamation would remain un-effected.
Other key observations:
- Laid down the supremacy of the floor test in determining the support enjoyed by the party in power.
- The use of Article 356 was justified only when there was a breakdown of constitutional machinery and not that of administrative machinery.
- Based on the Sarkaria Commission report (1988), the SC in this case has enlisted where the use of the exercise of power under Article 356 could be proper or improper.
  - Proper use example: constitutional direction of the Central government is disregarded by the state govt (Art 365).
  - Improper use example: State govt is not given prior warning to rectify itself except in case of extreme urgency leading to disastrous consequence.
- Secularism, democracy and federalism are the essential features of our Constitution and are part of its basic structure.
  - An attempt was made to define secularism: it is more than a passive attitude of religious tolerance. It is a positive concept of equal treatment of all religions.

Impact of S.R. Bommai Judgment

Restrictive use of Article 356: Between January 1950 and March 1994, the President’s Rule was imposed 100 times or an average of 2.5 times a year. Between 1995 and 2021, it has been imposed only 29 times or a little more than once a year.
Strengthen Federalism: The judgment made Article 356 proclamations justiciable without undermining the President’s discretionary powers, thus strengthening India’s federalism without diminishing its separation of powers.

Conclusion

Post-1994, the Bommai case was cited several times, making it one of the most quoted verdicts in the country's political history. As India continues to navigate the complex dynamics of centre-state relations and the role of secularism in governance, the principles established in the S.R. Bommai case remain vital in upholding the constitutional ideals of federalism and pluralism.