S.R. Bommai vs Union of India - Case Analysis

Introduction of S.R. Bommai vs Union of India

The landmark case of S.R. Bommai vs Union of India (1994) is an important decision of the Supreme Court that addressed the constitutionality of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. The Bommai case emerged from the political conflict in the state of Karnataka following the resignation of Chief Minister Sri Ramakrishna Hegde and imposition of President's Rule which led to significant legal debates about the extent of the powers of the President and the need for judicial oversight. The decision of the Supreme Court not only scrutinized the conditions under which Article 356 could be invoked. It also emphasized the need for accountability in the exercise of power and served as a crucial precedent for the relationship between state and central governments in India.

Download S.R. Bommai vs Union of India PDF

Historical Context and Facts of S.R. Bommai vs Union of India

The case at hand arose in Karnataka where the Janata Dal led by Chief Minister Sri Ramakrishna Hegde initially governed after being sworn in on 8th March, 1985.

Merger and Allegations

In 1985, the Janata Party merged with the Lok Dal to form the Janata Dal. Chief Minister Sri Ramakrishna Hegde faced allegations related to arrack bottling contracts and phone tapping which led to his resignation on 10th August, 1988.

Change in Leadership

S.R. Bommai became the Chief Minister on 13th August, 1988 after the resignation of Sri Ramakrishna Hegde.

Political Disputes

Disagreements within the Janata Dal resulted in a split with several members aligning with HD Devegowda. Out of 139 seats the Janata Dal held 112 with independent candidates in support of Devegowda while 27 legislators expressed support for him.

Governor’s Action

On 17th April, 1989, Kalyana Rao Molakeri, who was a defected Janata Dal member had submitted a letter to the Governor, P. Venkatasubaiah with signatures from 19 legislators indicating they no longer supported the government. On 19th April, 1989 after the consultations, the Governor reported to the President I.R. Venkatraman and stated that the Janata Dal government was in a minority and advised dissolving the assembly based on Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution.

Dissolution of the Assembly

On 20th April, 1989, 7 of the 19 legislators affirmed their support for the Janata Dal. The legislators claimed that their signatures had been misrepresented. Accordingly, the Chief Minister and cabinet members sought a floor test to prove their majority. The Governor initially considered but later dismissed.

Imposition of the President Rule

The assembly was dissolved on 21st April, 1989. The President’s rule was imposed based on the recommendations of the Governor.

Legal Challenge

S.R. Bommai and other ministers filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and challenged the proclamation of President’s rule as unconstitutional.

High Court Dismissal

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition and held that the proclamation was made after proper consultation and verification of the report of the Governor.

Appeal in the Supreme Court

Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court of Karnataka an appeal was filed in the Supreme Court regarding the legitimacy of the actions of the President and the powers under Article 356 of the Constitution.

Issue addressed in S.R. Bommai vs Union of India

The main question which was addressed in this case were-

• Are proclamations under Article 356 of the Constitution subject to judicial reviews?
• Whether the President has unfettered powers to issue Proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution?

Legal Provisions involved in S.R. Bommai vs Union of India

Article 356 of the Constitution of India

Article 356 deals with the provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in the State. It provides that-

1. If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation-

1. assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State
2. declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament
3. make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to any body or authority in the State:

Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorize the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to High Courts.

1. Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation.
2. Every Proclamation under this article shall be laid before each house of Parliament and shall, except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament:

Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People.

1. A Proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of issue of the Proclamation:

Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a Proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of six months from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to operate, but no such Proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than three years:

Provided further that if the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during any such period of six months and a resolution approving the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People during the said period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the continuance in force of the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People: Provided also that in the case of the Proclamation issued under clause (1) on the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect to the State of Punjab, the reference in the first proviso to this clause to "three years" shall be construed as a reference to five years.

1. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (4), a resolution with respect to the continuance in force of a Proclamation approved under clause (3) for any period beyond the expiration of one year from the date of issue of such proclamation shall not be passed by either House of Parliament unless--

1. a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, in the whole of India or, as the case may be, in the whole or any part of the State, at the time of the passing of such resolution
2. the Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of the Proclamation approved under clause (3) during the period specified in such resolution is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned: Provided that nothing in the clause shall apply to the Proclamation issued under clause (1) on the 11th May, 1987 with respect to the State of Punjab.

Judgment and Impact of S.R. Bommai vs Union of India

The S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case is a landmark judgment by the 9-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court in this case clarified the scope of judicial review concerning the proclamation of President’s Rule. It highlighted that courts have the authority to scrutinize such decisions made by the President. The Court stated that a hung assembly can only be declared after elections if no political party has a clear majority and cannot form a legitimate government. Article 356(3) of the Constitution provides that the President must not take any irreversible action without the approval of Parliament. The invocation of Article 356 must be justified only in cases of -

• actual breakdown in the state machinery
• Prevention of arbitrary use of power by the President

The decision in the Bommai case highlighted the need for executive decisions to be based on relevant facts rather than political considerations. The advice of the Governor to the President must not be solely reliant on irrelevant or perverse material. The Court asserted that even if decisions are political the judiciary cannot refrain from inquiry. It is imperative for courts to examine facts and ensure that decisions are justiciable and not protected by political claims.

The decision pointed out that the role of the Governor could lead to the concentration of power and making them a ‘kingmaker’ by controlling the information provided to the President. This raised the concerns about the accountability and independence of the state government. The decision aims to strengthen the federal structure of India and ensure autonomy of the state and limit the central interference in state affairs. The Court also highlighted the need for checks and balances within the government and reduced the unethical use of Article 356 of the Constitution.

The S.R. Bommai judgment calls for amendments to Article 356 to curtail the imposition of President’s Rule and to enhance the accountability mechanisms governing such decisions.

Conclusion

The S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case impacted the interpretation of Article 356 of the Constitution of India regarding the imposition of President’s Rule. The Supreme Court in the Bommai case established that proclamations under Article 356 are subject to judicial review. The Court also affirmed that the President cannot exercise unfettered powers without the oversight of the Parliament.