Judgement Briefs

Constitutional Law

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

AIR 1994 SC 1918; (1994) 3 SCC 1

Citation
AIR 1994 SC 1918; (1994) 3 SCC 1
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
11 March 1994
Bench
M.N. Venkatachaliah; S. Ratnavel Pandian; A.M. Ahmadi; Kuldip Singh; J.S. Verma; P.B. Sawant; K. Ramaswamy; S.C. Agrawal; B.P. Jeevan Reddy

Facts

  • The case combined challenges to the dismissal of several State Governments under Article 356.
  • In Karnataka, Chief Minister S.R. Bommai claimed that he continued to command a legislative majority despite defections.
  • The Governor recommended President’s Rule without permitting a floor test.
  • In other States, elected governments were dismissed on grounds including:
  • loss of legislative majority;
  • political instability; and
  • conduct allegedly inconsistent with secularism.
  • Article 356 Proclamations dissolved or suspended the State Governments and Assemblies.
  • The cases raised fundamental questions about:
  • federalism;
  • democratic majority;
  • secularism; and
  • judicial review of presidential satisfaction.

Issue

  • Whether a Proclamation under Article 356 is judicially reviewable.
  • How the majority of a State Government should be tested.
  • Whether an Assembly may be dissolved before parliamentary approval of the Proclamation.
  • What relief courts may grant if a Proclamation is unconstitutional.
  • Whether secularism forms part of the basic structure.
  • Whether anti-secular State action may justify Article 356.

Rule

  • Presidential satisfaction under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
  • Courts may examine whether:
  • relevant material existed;
  • the material rationally supported constitutional breakdown;
  • the action was mala fide; or
  • the power was used for an improper purpose.
  • Courts do not review the political wisdom or sufficiency of relevant material as an appellate authority.
  • The proper place to determine legislative majority is ordinarily the floor of the House.
  • The Assembly should normally be kept in suspended animation until Parliament approves the Proclamation.
  • If the Proclamation is invalid, courts may:
  • restore the dismissed Government;
  • revive the Assembly; and
  • undo unconstitutional consequences.
  • Federalism and secularism are parts of the basic structure.
  • A State Government acting against secular constitutional obligations may trigger Article 356.

Application

  • The Court rejected the broad claim that Article 356 satisfaction was entirely political and beyond courts.
  • The President acts under a constitutional power with defined conditions.
  • The Union must therefore possess material showing that the State Government cannot be carried on according to the Constitution.
  • Mere political disagreement or administrative difficulty is insufficient.
  • In a majority dispute, the Governor should not decide strength through private communications, personal assessment or untested allegations.
  • The Assembly floor offers the transparent constitutional method.
  • The Court also restricted immediate dissolution.
  • Parliamentary approval under Article 356(3) is not an empty formality.
  • Before approval, the Union may suspend the Assembly, but irreversible dissolution should ordinarily wait.
  • On secularism, the Court held that State power cannot be exercised to promote one religion or treat citizens unequally on religious grounds.
  • Conduct seriously violating secularism can amount to constitutional breakdown.
  • Because the combined cases involved different facts, the validity and practical relief differed across States.
  • The common constitutional rules nevertheless substantially limited arbitrary use of President’s Rule.

Conclusion

  • The nine-judge Bench held that Article 356 Proclamations are judicially reviewable.
  • Legislative majority should normally be tested on the Assembly floor.
  • Courts can restore an unlawfully dismissed Government and Assembly.