- Summary
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [1] was a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, where the Court discussed at length provisions of Article 356 of the Constitution of India. This case had a huge impact on Centre-State Relation and also this judgement attempted to curb blatant misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution of India. This case deals with the grounds and scopes of judicial review in imposing President’s rule in a State.
S.R Bommai was the Karnataka Chief Minister between August 1988 and April 1989. His government was dismissed on April 21, 1989 under Article 356 of the Constitution and President’s Rule was imposed, in what was then common mode to keep Opposition party at bay. The dismissal was on grounds that the Bommai Government had lost majority following large-scale defections engineered by several party leaders of the day. Then Governor refused to give Bommai an opportunity to test the majority in the Assembly.
Bommai challenged the validity of the proclamation before the Karnataka High Court through a writ petition on various grounds. A special bench of 3 judges of Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition. Then he moved the Supreme Court.
Besides the Karnataka proclamation, the Supreme Court was also called upon to decide the validity of similar proclamation under Article 356(1) in the State of Meghalaya and Nagaland. And there were three more proclamation before the Supreme Court for review, those made in Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan in 1992 in the wake of the demolition of the disputed Babri structure in Ayodhya. The government in these States belonged to the BJP which was sympathetic to the organizations responsible for the demolition. The M.P. High Court had held the Madhya Pradesh proclamation to be “invalid and beyond the scope of Article 356”. Accordingly, the Central Government appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court verdict. All the writ petition which were pending in respect of challenging the proclamation under Article 356, were transferred to the Supreme Court for the hearing. [2]
The Supreme Court in its judgment by majority declare the Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland proclamation as unconstitutional but the proclamation in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh as valid. Thus, both the High Court decision mentioned above were overruled.
A Bench of nine Judges of the Supreme Court issued a historic order, which in a way put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State Government under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions. The President exercise his power under Article 356(1) on the advice of the Council of Ministers to which, in effect, the power really belongs though it may be formally vested in the President. There should be test of strength between the government and others on the floor of the House before recommending imposition of the President’s rule in the State. “The dissolution of Legislative Assembly is not a matter of course. It should be resorted to only where it is found necessary for achieving the purposes of the Proclamation”, the Court said[3].
“In case both Houses of parliament disapprove or do not approve the proclamation, the proclamation lapses at the end of the two-month period. In such a case, the government which was dismissed revives. The legislative Assembly, which may have been kept in suspended animation gets reactivated,” the Court said[4]. Also the Court made it amply clear that Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review[5]. In this case, the Supreme Court seeks to promote several basic and wholesome constitutional values, such as, parliamentary system, federalism, control over the executive and secularism. [6]
- Comment
This case deals with evaluating the constitutional mechanism and exploring the whole realm of constitutional imperative on Central-State relations and on the controversial role of State Governors inviting President’s Rule. The Constitution of India gives greater powers to centre and the states supremely powered within the spheres which are allotted to them. The centre cannot temper their power. This judgement puts an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State Government under Article 356 and also marked out the limitations with in which Article 356 has to function. The impact of the verdict of this case is firstly seen in, A.B. Vajpayee government in 1999 was forced reinstate a government it dismissed. The Rabri Devi government, which was sacked on February 12, 1999 was reinstated on March 8, 1999 when it become clear that the Central government would suffer a defeat in Rajya Sabha over the issue[7]. And after that whenever the case of hung government arise then this case would be cited. This case also provide that the Preamble of the Constitution is an integral part of the constitution and the democratic form of government, federal structure, unity and integrity of the nation, secularism, socialism, social justice and judicial review are the basic features of the Constitution[8]. This case is a very fine case of judicial creativity.
[1] AIR 1994 SC 1918
[2] M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law 752 (Eighth Edition 2018).
[3] www.indiankanoon.com.
[4]The Hindu, May 18, 2018.
[5] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 1918.
[6] On judicial creativity, see, infra, Chapter XLI.
[7] The Hindu, May 18,2018
[8] Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, AIR 1962 SC 933.
