S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

Article 356 allows the President to impose President's Rule in a State if he is satisfied, from a Governor's report or otherwise, that the State government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution. By the time of this case, the Article had been used more than ninety times, mostly against opposition-party governments. In the 1977 State of Rajasthan case, the Court had largely avoided interfering, and the Sarkaria Commission (1988) had expressed concern about misuse.

S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of Karnataka, heading a Janata Dal government, from August 1988 to April 1989. On 19 April 1989, the Governor reported to the President that 19 M.L.A.s (17 of them from the Janata Dal itself) had withdrawn support and that Bommai could no longer prove a majority. He recommended President's Rule. Bommai asked for a floor test in the Assembly. On 20 April, seven of those 19 M.L.A.s wrote to the Governor saying their signatures had been obtained by misleading them and that they still supported the government. The Governor, without meeting them, assumed these letters were written under pressure from the Chief Minister. Before the Assembly could be summoned, President's Rule was imposed on 21 April 1989 and the Assembly was dissolved. Bommai's writ petition under Article 226 was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court.

The Supreme Court heard this matter together with similar cases from Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. In Meghalaya, the Governor's report had factual and legal errors and ignored earlier Supreme Court orders. In Nagaland, 13 Congress M.L.A.s broke away (treated by the Speaker as a split under the Tenth Schedule); Vamuzo claimed the support of 35 of 59 M.L.A.s after Chief Minister Hokishe Sema resigned, but was not given a floor test. In Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh, B.J.P. governments were dismissed after the demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992 and the communal riots that followed; material was placed before the Court that some ministers had openly supported the kar sevaks and had links with the then-banned R.S.S.

1. Did the President have concrete material before him to conclude that the government of the State could not be carried on in accordance with the Constitution?

2. Is the President's power under Article 356 unlimited?

3. Is the use of Article 356 open to judicial review, and if so, to what extent?

It records that Bommai asked to be allowed to prove his majority through a floor test in the Assembly. For the Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh proclamations, material was placed before the Court that the B.J.P.'s election manifesto promised a Ram Mandir at Ayodhya, that some ministers had openly supported the kar sevaks, that some were said to have links with the then-banned R.S.S., and that the riots had caused loss of life and property.

The decision was delivered on 11 March 1994 by a nine-judge Constitution Bench, which produced six separate opinions.

Karnataka: The Governor acted in haste and should have held a floor test, because the right place to prove a majority is the floor of the House, not Raj Bhavan. His report rested on unconfirmed sources without investigation. Justice Sawant and Justice Kuldip Singh said the haste carried a clear hint of mala fides. The proclamation was invalid and the High Court's decision was wrong.

Meghalaya: The Governor's report had factual and legal errors and ignored earlier Supreme Court orders; Justice Sawant and Justice Kuldip Singh called this factual and legal mala fides. The proclamation was invalid.

Nagaland: Justice Sawant and Justice Kuldip Singh held that Vamuzo should have been given a floor test, since the Tenth Schedule at that time recognised a split of one-third of members, and the proclamation was unconstitutional. But Justice Jeevan Reddy, Justice Agrawal and Justice Pandian disposed of the Nagaland appeal only on Article 74(2) and gave no decision on its validity. So the majority struck down only the Karnataka and Meghalaya proclamations. As fresh elections had already been held, the governments were not restored.

Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh: Secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. A State government acting against secularism can create a situation where the government is not carried on in accordance with the Constitution. President's Rule in these three States was held valid.

On judicial review: the President's satisfaction is subject to judicial review. If there is no objective material, or the material is irrelevant, or the decision is mala fide, the Supreme Court or a High Court can declare the proclamation invalid. Article 74(2) protects the advice of ministers, but the court can examine the material on which that advice was based. Privilege under Section 123 of the Evidence Act may be claimed, but the court will decide it on merits.

Constitution of India, Article 356 (President's Rule), including Article 356(3); Article 74(1) (President acts on advice of the Council of Ministers); Article 74(2) (courts cannot inquire into advice tendered to the President); Article 226 (writ petition in the High Court); Tenth Schedule (anti-defection, split); Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 123 (unpublished official records), now Section 129 of the B.S.A.; Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(3) (seeking votes on the ground of religion is a corrupt practice)

This is the leading case on Article 356, federalism and the Governor's role. It answers when and how President's Rule can be imposed and whether courts can review it. It made the floor test the rule for deciding majority, barred dissolution of the Assembly before Parliament's approval, allowed restoration of dismissed governments, and declared secularism and federalism basic features. After this case, the use of Article 356 reduced considerably. Later cases such as Rameshwar Prasad (2006), Nabam Rebia (2016) and the 2016 Uttarakhand case carried forward the same approach. Exam keywords: nine judges, Article 356 subject to judicial review, floor test, no dissolution before Parliament's approval, restoration possible, secularism and federalism as basic features, and Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act.

Hypothetical: Prince is the Chief Minister of a State. Governor Farhan receives letters from some M.L.A.s saying they no longer support Prince, and the next day some of them write back saying their signatures were obtained by misleading them. Without calling a floor test, Farhan recommends President's Rule and the Centre dissolves the Assembly immediately. Applying the Bommai principles, Prince can challenge the proclamation in court: the majority should have been tested on the floor of the House, the Assembly could not be dissolved before both Houses of Parliament approved the proclamation, and if the proclamation is found invalid the court can restore Prince's government and the Assembly.