SR Bommai Judgment: Upholding Constitutional Principles

Introduction

In 1994 the Supreme Court issued a historic order that put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State governments under Article 356 in S. R. Bommai vs Union of India case. To this day, the Bommai Judgement, as it is known, remains one of the most historically cited verdicts of the Supreme Court. 

Key Provisions and Judicial Scrutiny of Presidential Proclamation under Article 356

• The President’s Rule is under judicial review.
• Satisfaction of the President based on the relevant material. The court cannot go into the correctness of the material or its adequacy, but it can see whether it is relevant or not.
• The Centre needs to justify the President’s Rule. If found unconstitutional or invalid, the court can revive the state legislative assembly.
• State assembly can be dissolved only after parliamentary approval till then, it can only be suspended.
• The question of the state government losing the confidence of the legislative assembly should be decided on the floor of the House, and until that is done, the ministry should not be unseated.
• If the state government is pursuing an anti-secular policy, then it is liable to take action under Article 356.

Key Principles Established by the Supreme Court in the Bommai Case Regarding Article 356 Imposition

The Supreme Court established the following principles concerning the imposition of the President’s Rule in a state under Article 356 based on the Bommai Case:

• The satisfaction of the President to impose President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.
• The Governor’s report must be based on objective material and not on subjective satisfaction.
• The burden lies on the Centre to prove that relevant material exists to justify the imposition of the President’s Rule.
• The court cannot go into the correctness of the material or its adequacy but it can see whether it is relevant to the action.
• The majority test should be conducted on the floor of the House, until that is done the ministry should not be unseated.
• State governments pursuing anti-secular politics are liable to action under Article 356.
• The only situation warranting President’s Rule is where the government has lost its majority and there is no alternative government available.
• When a new political party forms the government at the Centre, it will not have the authority to dismiss ministries formed by other parties in the states.
• The Governor must allow the Chief Minister to prove a majority before recommending the President’s Rule.
• The court can intervene to restore the dissolved assembly if the President’s Rule is imposed arbitrarily.
• Exceptional power under Article 356 should be used only occasionally to meet the requirements of special situations.

In the Bommai case (1994), the Supreme Court, drawing from the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-state Relations (1988), outlined the circumstances under which the use of power under Article 356 (imposition of President’s Rule) could be considered appropriate or inappropriate.

Conclusion

• SR Bommai’s judgment by the Supreme Court in 1994 established crucial principles regarding the imposition of the President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. 
• It emphasized the importance of judicial review, objective assessment of the Governor’s report, conducting the majority test on the floor of the House, and providing opportunities for the Chief Minister to prove a majority before recommending the President’s Rule
• The judgment clarified the circumstances under which President’s Rule can be imposed and underscored the significance of upholding constitutional principles and democratic norms in such situations.