PSDA ASSIGNMENT

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – l
COURSE CODE: - LLB 106

Submitted to:
Dr. Manan Dardi
Assistant Professor
VSLLS, VIPS-TC
Submitted by:
Bhumi Bhatia
(17817703523)
BBALLB (Hons) - 2M

1|Page
Case Comment on
“S. R. Bommai v. Union of India
AIR 1994 SC 1918”

INTRODUCTION

The case of S. R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark judgement regarding the scope
of Article 356 of Indian Constitution. This case plays a significant role in understanding
the problems of center-state relationship and also helps in providing information about
the basic structure of Indian constitution. This case provided certain principles and laid
down the limits and scope of the Article 356. Article 356 is said to be misused quite often
by the parties of India as quoted by the court, this case plays an important role and also
serves as a guide to resolve all the disputes and problems arising out of the same. This
judgement is considered to be one of the most historic judgements and was delivered by a
bench of nine judges.

FACTS OF THE CASE

S. R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of the party of Janata Dal government in Karnataka
during August 13, 1988 and April 21, 1989. His government was dismissed on the
grounds of President’s rule under Article 356 on April 21, 1989. During this timeline the
application of Article 356 was a very common practice. Bommai’s government was
dismissed on the grounds that they have lost majority following large-scale defections
engineered by several leaders of the party. Bommai provided the governor P. Venkata
Subbaiah with a resolution but was denied to prove its majority in the house. Bommai
then went to the Karnataka High Court with a writ but was dismissed by the court. He
then went to Supreme Court of India for the same. It took five years for the judgement to
come by the Supreme Court of India, the court held the arbitrary usages of Article 356
and provide for the scope of it.

BACKGROUND OF ARTICLE 356

The germination of Article 356 of the Constitution can be found in the abhorred Section
93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which established British dominance over

2|Page
Indian nationalist aspirations. The power here was accorded to the Governor to proclaim
an emergency on his satisfaction that the state is not being governed in accordance with
the provisions of the Constitution. Section 93 essentially reflects the federalism
envisioned in the Indian context where states though not entirely amputated from or
absorbed within the Union, enjoy a limited sense of autonomy from the Union.

With the scope of “Union of States”, the constitution negates the possibility of
cessationist tendencies of the State. However, this cohesion cannot be attributed to an
imaginary identical nature of the Union and the State. The federal units, in regards to the
electoral system, can have a different ruling party than the Union, with radically different
political manifestos. Yet the sincerity of Article 356 of the Constitution to keep this
federal system intact has not remained aloof from doubts.

On a report of the Governor of any of the States or otherwise, the President can issue a
proclamation of emergency under Article 356(1). Where there is no report, the President
can act on other methods which include but are not limited to the advice given to him by
the Council of Ministers.

According to the Privy Council in the case Bhagat Singh v. The King Emperor 1, the
drastic action necessitated by the chaotic state of matters in a particular State can be
promulgated by the Governor-General alone. The President in our Constitution being a
constitutional head is bound to act in a way and on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
This position was made explicit by the 42nd amendment which had the effect of equating
the decision of the President as the decision of the Council of Ministers under Article 74.

ISSUE OF THE CASE

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India raised several issues regarding the scope of Article 356,
it raised the issue that the imposition of the President’s rule in all of the states was
constitutionally valid or not? It also raised the question regarding the intentions of the
council of minister and the President for the imposition of President’s rule. The case
questioned whether the Article 356 is subject to judicial review or not and whether the
President’s proclamation stating that a situation has arisen where the state’s function is
not in accordance with the constitutional provisions.

OBSERVATION AND DECISION BY HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

1
(1931)33BOMLR950

3|Page
The Supreme Court affirmed that the proclamation issued by the President under Article
356(1) is subject to judicial review, wherein the court can assess whether it was
supported by any material, whether such material was pertinent, and whether the
proclamation was made in bad faith. If a prima facie case challenging the proclamation is
established, the burden falls on the Union Government to demonstrate the existence of
relevant supporting material. Article 74(2) does not prevent the examination of the
material upon which the President based their decision. The removal of Clause (5) by the
44th Amendment Act clarifies that the action is reviewable. The Union of India must
produce the material when requested, and failure to do so cannot be used as a defense.
However, the court's review is confined to determining the relevance of the material to
the action, not its accuracy or sufficiency. Even if only a portion of the material is
relevant to the action, it is subject to scrutiny.

It's important to remember that in a democratic country like ours, when the state
legislature is dissolved using the power outlined in Article 356(1) of the Constitution and
elections are called for, it results in significant expenses for the public treasury,
ultimately burdening taxpayers. This diversion of state resources and machinery from
other important tasks adds to the financial strain. Moreover, the already high costs of
election campaigns become even more burdensome for ordinary citizens. The frequent
occurrence of elections due to unjustified use of Article 356(1) can undermine democratic
principles by favoring only the wealthy in the electoral process. Additionally, the
frequent dissolution of the legislature can lead to disillusionment among the public with
the electoral process and, consequently, with democracy itself.

Furthermore, the Presidential power granted in Article 356(1) should also be considered
from another crucial perspective. Decentralization of power is not only an effective
administrative strategy for closer scrutiny, accountability, and efficiency but also an
integral aspect of democracy.

When the President issues a Proclamation under Article 356(1), he has the authority to
utilize any combination of the powers outlined in sub-clauses (a), (b), and (c). The
decision regarding which powers to employ and when to do so depends on the prevailing
circumstances. Since the provisions in clause (3) of Article 356 serve as a check on the
President's powers under clause (1), it is not permissible for the President to enact
irreversible actions under sub-clauses (a), (b), and (c) until both Houses of Parliament
have endorsed the proclamations. Consequently, the President should refrain from
dissolving the Legislative Assembly using the Governor's powers under Article 174(2)(b)
in conjunction with Article 356(1)(a) until both Houses of Parliament have given their
approval. Even if the proclamation is approved by both parliamentary chambers, if it is
4|Page
subsequently deemed invalid by the courts, they retain the authority to revert to the
situation prior to the proclamation's issuance, thereby reinstating the legislative assembly
and the Ministry.
The court affirmed that Secularism is an integral part of the fundamental structure of the
Constitution. Actions by a State Government aimed at undermining or violating
Secularism as outlined in our constitution can legitimately be seen as creating a situation
where the governance of the state cannot adhere to the provisions of the Constitution.
While every individual in India is guaranteed freedom of religion, the state views a
person's religion, faith, or belief as irrelevant. In the eyes of the state, everyone is equal
and deserves equal treatment. Religion holds no sway in state affairs. A political party
cannot simultaneously function as a religious entity. The realms of politics and religion
must remain separate. Any state government adopting in-secular policies or actions acts
against the Constitutional mandate and opens itself to action under Article 356.

The proclamations issued on April 21, 1989, concerning Karnataka (civil appeal no. 3645
of 1989), and on October 11, 1991, regarding Meghalaya (transferred cases no.5 and 7 of
1992), are deemed unconstitutional. If not for the subsequent elections and the formation
of new Legislative Assemblies and governments in both states, the proclamations would
have been formally invalidated, and the respective governments and Legislative
Assemblies restored. Civil appeal no. 3654 of 1989 and transferred cases no. 5 and 7 of
1992 regarding Nagaland are resolved in line with the court's interpretation of Article
74(2) of the Constitution. The proclamations dated January 15, 1993, affecting Madhya
Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh, as referenced in civil appeals nos. 1692,
1692A-1692C of 1993, 4627-4630 of 1990, transferred case (c) no. 9 of 1993, and
transferred case no. 8 of 1993, are found not to be unconstitutional. The civil appeals are
upheld, and the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. (c) no. 237 of
1993 is overturned.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

The S.R. Bommai case represents a significant ruling by the Supreme Court regarding
both the basic structure doctrine and the misuse of Article 356. The verdict clarified the
extent and constraints of Article 356, stressing its application only in exceptional
circumstances. The principles articulated by the Supreme Court aligned with the
recommendations put forth by the Sarkaria Commission. This case underscored the
importance of federalism, asserting that state governments are not subordinate to the
central government and advocating for cooperative federalism. Furthermore, the
judgment emphasized the judiciary's role in scrutinizing the President's actions under
Article 356 to ensure compliance with constitutional principles and to prevent abuse of

5|Page
power. It also affirmed that the determination of a government's majority lies solely with
the floor of the Assembly, not the subjective assessment of the Governor.

In conclusion, the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case stands as a pivotal milestone in
India's constitutional jurisprudence. India operates under a quasi-federal system, blending
elements of both federalism and unitarism. This landmark ruling holds significant
importance in shaping the intricate relationship between the central and state
governments. It serves as a guiding light to curtail undue central intervention in state
affairs.]

The judgment establishes clear directives concerning the imposition of President's rule
under Article 356, thereby putting a stop to arbitrary dismissals of state governments by
the President. Crucially, it underscores that the President's authority to issue such
proclamations is not absolute but subject to judicial scrutiny. Additionally, the ruling sets
forth guidelines regarding crucial aspects like the floor test and the principle of
secularism.

Moreover, the case reinforces secularism as an integral component of India's

constitutional bedrock, affirming its status as a fundamental aspect of the nation's
governance framework. Thus, the legacy of the S.R. Bommai case extends far beyond its
immediate context, shaping the contours of India's federal structure and reinforcing the
principles of constitutionalism and democracy.

6|Page