Scribd
Upload
143 views4 pages

Significance of S.R Bommai Vs Union of India

This document provides a rough draft submitted by a law student on the case of S.R. Bommai Vs. Union of India. The key facts of the case are that the Governor of Karnataka recommended President's Rule after the Chief Minister lost majority support. The Supreme Court held that the President's power to proclaim emergency in a state is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. If the proclamation is found to be malafide, the court can strike it down even if approved by both houses of parliament. The student's research aims to analyze the extent of the President's power to proclaim emergency and hypothesizes that presidential rule under Article 356 is justified.

Uploaded by

akash anand
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
143 views4 pages

Significance of S.R Bommai Vs Union of India

This document provides a rough draft submitted by a law student on the case of S.R. Bommai Vs. Union of India. The key facts of the case are that the Governor of Karnataka recommended President's Rule after the Chief Minister lost majority support. The Supreme Court held that the President's power to proclaim emergency in a state is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. If the proclamation is found to be malafide, the court can strike it down even if approved by both houses of parliament. The student's research aims to analyze the extent of the President's power to proclaim emergency and hypothesizes that presidential rule under Article 356 is justified.

Uploaded by

akash anand
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

SIGNIFICANCE OF S.

R BOMMAI VS UNION OF
INDIA
ROUGH DRAFT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE COURSE
TITLED JURISPRUDENCE-I FOR OBTAINING THE DEGREE B.B.A., LL.B.
DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR 2020-21.

SUBMITTED TO: - SUBMITTED BY: -


Dr. Anirudh Prasad Akash Anand
Professor of Law 6th Semester
Roll No: 1808

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, PATNA


February, 2020
INTRODUCTION
The case of S.R. Bommai Vs. Union Of India1 proved to be a very landmark judgement in
the history of India. The biggest judicial organ of India “Supreme Court” was called upon
after around forty two years of the adoption of the grand norm of the country “The
Constitution of India”, to interpret the basic structures of the Constitution relating to a
provision of an article which was said to remain a dead letter. Till the judgement of this case,
the presidential rule as per the provision of the Article 3562 (which was said to remain a dead
letter) has been called upon upto 95 times in the country. This clearly determines the need to
resolve the problem arising in this sphere of law and to grab the attention of Judiciary. In this
case Supreme Court had discussed the issues associated with Article 356 in depth. A
Constitutional bench of 9 Judges heard the argument on the behalf of both the parties and the
majority view is deductible.

Facts of the case


The Governor of Karnataka received nineteen letters by the council of ministers stating that
they are withdrawing the support from the ruling party and hence due to the non-majority
Governor forwarded a report to the president about the deflection of Council Of Ministers
from the party in ruling. The Governor stated in the report that the existing Chief Minister
Mr. S.R. Bommai failed to call in majority for the majority of assembly and thus the
president’s rule should be imposed in the State under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of
India. The very next day of sending the report, seven out of the nineteen ministers
complained about the misrepresentation in their respective letters and Hence Mr. S.R.
Bommai, the Chief Minister and the Law Minister visited the to summon the assemble same
day in order to prove the Majority of his government in the assembly. The report of the same
was forwarded to the President But again on the same day, the President received another
report from the Governor which states that Mr. S.R. Bommai, the then Chief Minister of
Karnataka has lost his confidence of Majority and has requested the president to proclaim the
emergency in the state under Article 356. On the basis of this report, the president proclaimed
the emergency. A writ petition was filed challenging the validity of the proclamation in the
special 3 judges bench of Karnataka High Court but it was dismissed and Thus he preferred
this appeal. The Similar question of law arose in the case of Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya
Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himanchal Pradesh and hence all the petitions were heard conjointly
by the 9 judges bench of Supreme Court.
Judgment
The Hon’ble court held that the power of president to proclaim the emergency in a state i.e.
the presidential rule is subject to some restrictions and it should be on the basis of the report
and opinion of governor and not in the sole satisfaction. The Hon’ble court also held that the
court owns the power to Judicial review of the proclamation and id it is found to be malafide,
the court can stuck down the proclamation even if it has received the consent of both the
houses.

METHOD RESEARCH
The researcher has adopted a purely doctrinal method of research. The researcher has made

extensive use of the library at the Chanakya National Law University and also the internet

sources.

SOURCE OF DATA
The researcher has relied upon both primary as well as secondary sources to complete the
project.
• Primary Source – Bare Act, Case Law
• Secondary Source – Newspaper, Article Internet

METHOD OF WRITING
The method of writing followed in the course of this research paper is primarily analytical.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE


The researcher tends to analyse that the President enjoys unrestricted power to proclaim
emergency.

HYPOTHESIS
The researcher presumes that ‘The presidential rule proclaimed under article 356 is justified’.
TENTATIVE CHAPTERIZATION
Chapter 1: - introduction.

Chapter 2: - Issue in S.R Bommai vs Union of india case

Chapter 3: - The Principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court

Chapter 4: - judgement and its significance

Chapter 5: - conclusion and suggestion

BIBLIOGRAPHY
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950 BARE ACT
The Constitution of India , V.N. Shukla https://www.lawnotes.in/collective_responsibility

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy