S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
Bench: Constitution Bench — 9 Judges (M.N. Venkatachaliah CJ, P.B. Sawant, Kuldip Singh, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, S.R. Pandian, K. Ramaswamy, A.M. Ahmadi, J.S. Verma & S.C. Agrawal JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of Karnataka when the Janata Dal government lost its majority. The Governor, without giving Bommai an opportunity to prove his majority on the floor of the House, recommended President's Rule under Article 356 to the President, who accepted the recommendation and dismissed the state government. Similar dismissals occurred in other states. The cases raised fundamental questions: Is the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356 justiciable? Must a Chief Minister be given the opportunity to prove majority on the floor of the House before the state government is dismissed? What are the limits of the President's power under Article 356?
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Is the exercise of power under Article 356 (imposition of President's Rule) justiciable — can courts examine whether the power was properly exercised?
- 2Must the Governor/President give the Chief Minister an opportunity to prove majority on the floor of the House before recommending/imposing President's Rule on the ground of loss of majority?
- 3What is the effect of dissolution of the state legislative assembly under Article 356 — can it be revived on judicial review?
- 4Is secularism a basic structure element — and can President's Rule be imposed if a state government departs from secular values?
The Judgment
The 9-judge Constitution Bench by a majority held: (1) the exercise of power under Article 356 is justiciable — courts can examine whether there was material before the President to form a satisfaction that a constitutional breakdown had occurred; (2) the floor test — and not the Governor's subjective assessment — is the proper method for testing whether a government commands a majority; the Chief Minister must ordinarily be given an opportunity to prove majority on the floor of the House; (3) if Article 356 is imposed without following proper procedure, the court can restore the dismissed government; (4) Secularism is a basic structure element of the Constitution — a state government that openly flouts secularism or encourages communalism can be dismissed under Article 356; (5) the dissolution of the state assembly should not be immediately acted upon once challenged in court — the assembly should be kept in suspended animation pending judicial review.
Key Principles Laid Down
FLOOR TEST IS THE CONSTITUTIONAL METHOD: The floor of the House — not the Governor's subjective opinion — is the constitutionally mandated method for testing whether a government commands majority support. A Chief Minister must be given an opportunity to prove majority on the floor before the Governor recommends President's Rule.
ARTICLE 356 IS JUSTICIABLE: The President's satisfaction under Article 356 is not immune from judicial review. Courts can examine whether there was objective material before the President justifying the conclusion that constitutional governance had broken down in the state. Mala fide or extraneous exercise of Article 356 can be struck down.
ASSEMBLY IN SUSPENDED ANIMATION: Once the dismissal of a state government under Article 356 is challenged in court, the state legislature must not be dissolved until the challenge is decided. The assembly should be kept in suspended animation to preserve the possibility of revival if the court sets aside the proclamation.
SECULARISM — BASIC STRUCTURE: Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. A state government that openly pursues communal policies or subverts the secular character of the state can be removed under Article 356. However, the majority and minority judgments differ on the scope of this principle.
FEDERALISM — CENTRE'S POWER CURTAILED: Bommai significantly curtailed the Central Government's ability to use Article 356 as a political weapon against opposition state governments. It is the foundational ruling on Centre-State relations and the limits of Article 356.
Impact on Indian Law
S.R. Bommai (1994) is the most important case on federal relations and Centre-State constitutional law in India. It effectively ended the era of casual use of Article 356 as a political tool by Central governments to dismiss opposition state governments. The floor test requirement has become a constitutional convention. The case's emphasis on secularism as basic structure has been relied upon in challenges to state and central legislation. It is mandatory reading for Constitutional Law, Centre-State relations, and Article 356.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did S.R. Bommai establish about Article 356 (President's Rule)?
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) established that: (1) the floor test is the correct method to determine if a state government has majority — the Governor cannot rely on personal assessment; (2) the President's satisfaction under Article 356 is justiciable — courts can review whether there was objective material for imposing President's Rule; (3) once challenged in court, the state assembly must be kept in suspended animation (not dissolved) until the case is decided; and (4) secularism is a basic structure element — a government subverting secularism may be dismissed under Article 356. The judgment drastically curtailed misuse of Article 356 as a political weapon.