BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-

19

Dr. RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA NATIONAL

LAW UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW.

BASICS OF CASE LAW

TOPIC:

SR BOMMAI VS UNION OF INDIA ON 11 MARCH, 1994

– CASE STUDY

SUBMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY-

Mr. ABDULLAH NASIR HIMANG SARASWAT

ASSISTANT PROFFESOR OF LAW, ROLL NO- 180101057

DR. RAM MANHOR LOHIYA B.A.LLB(HONS.)/SEM- 1

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY SECTION-A

1|Page
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my gratitude and deep regards to my teacher for the subject, Mr. ABDULLAH
NASIR for giving me such a challenging topic and also for his exemplary guidance, monitoring
and constant encouragement throughout the course of this thesis.

I also take this opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to my seniors in the college for
their cordial support, valuable information and guidance, which helped me in completing this
task through various stages.

I am obliged to the staff members of the Madhu Limaye Library, for the timely and valuable
information provided by them in their respective fields. I am grateful for their cooperation during
the period of my assignment.

Lastly, I thank almighty, my family and friends for their constant encouragement without which
this assignment would not have been possible.

2|Page
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

CHAPTERIZATION

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE………………………………………………………………..5-6

INTRODUCTION...……………………………………………………..……………….…..6-7

FACTS OF THE CASE …….………………………...……………………………………...7-8

ISSUES OF THE CASE…….……………………...............………………………………...9-10

ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER………………..……………………………………….....10-11

ARGUMENTS BY THE RESPONDEANT...……………...…………..……………………12-13

JUDGEMENT …………………………………….…………………………………………14-16

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………………….17

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………….....16

3|Page
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Aims and Objectives:

The aim of the project is to present a detailed study of the topic “SR Bommai vs Union of
India(1994)– CASE STUDY”through decisions and suggestions and different writings. The aim
has been to come to a conclusion very much indigenous.

Research Methodology
Keeping the objectives in mind, material was collected with the help of different books and then
it was compiled to make the theoretical part of the project. Recent and important case laws are
analyzed. The methodology of my research is doctrinaire method.

Sources of Data:
The following secondary sources of data have been used in the project-

Books
Websites

4|Page
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

OVER VIEW OF THE CASE

 CASE:
SR Bommai vs.Union of India 11 March, 1994

 CITATION:
1994 AIR 1918

 DATE OF DECISION: 11 March 1994

 NAME OF JUDGES: S.R. Pandian, A.M. Ahmadi, J.S. Verma, P.B. Sawant, K.
Ramaswami, S.C. Agarwal, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Kuldip Singh and Yogeshwar Dayal.

 PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE CASE:

PETITIONER: S.R. Bommai

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA

5|Page
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

Introduction:

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 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 and
related issues. This case had huge impact on Centre-State Relations. The judgement attempted to
curb blatant misuse of Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which allowed President's rule to
be imposed over state governments.

Article 356 deals with imposition of President's Rule over a State of India. When a state is under
President's Rule, the elected state government (led by the Chief Minister and the Council of
Ministers) is dismissed and Council of ministers is suspended at legislature, and administration is
conducted directly by the Governor of the state. The Governor is an appointee of the President
and thus, effectively, a functionary of the Union Government (the central or federal government).
Thus imposition of President's Rule negates the federal character of the Indian political system,
where administration usually is shared between the Union and State governments. It also
militates against the democratic doctrine of popular sovereignty, since an elected government is
suspended. These reasons have made use of Article 356 controversial. Nevertheless, it was used
repeatedly by central governments to suspend state governments (of opposite political parties)
based on genuine reasons or trumped-up excuses.

Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, chairman of the Drafting Committee of the Constitution of India,
referred to Article 356 as a dead letter of the Constitution. In the constituent assembly debate it
was suggested that Article 356 is liable to be abused for political gains. Dr. Ambedkar replied, "I
share the sentiments that such articles will never be called into operation and they would remain

6|Page
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

a dead letter. If at all they are brought into operation, I hope the President, who is endowed with
these powers, will take proper precautions before actually suspending the administration of the
provinces. I hope the first thing he will do would be to issue a mere warning to a province that
has erred, that things were not happening in the way in which they were intended to happen in
the Constitution. If that warning fails, the second thing for him to do will be to order an election
allowing the people of the province to settle matters by themselves. It is only when these two
remedies fail that he would resort to this article."

But this was never the case and before the judgement in Bommai case, Article 356 has been
repeatedly abused to dismiss the State Governments controlled by a political party opposed to
ruling party at centre. Provision for suspension of elected governments has been used on more
than 90 occasions and in most of the cases, it appeared to be of doubtful constitutional validity,
as mentioned by B. P. Jeevan Reddy during one of his interviews in 1998.

As a fact Chattisgarh and Telangana are the only two states where president’s rule have not been
imposed yet.

Fact of the case:

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India came before the bench of 9 judges under the following
circumstances:

The Janata Party being the majority party in the Karnataka State Legislature had formed
Government under the leadership of S.R. Bommai. In September 1988, the Janata Party and Lok
Dal merged into a new party called Janata Dal. The Ministry was expanded with addition of 13
members. Within two days thereafter, K.R. Molakery, a legislator of Janata Dal defected from
the party. He presented a letter to the Governor along with 19 letters, allegedly signed by
legislators supporting the Ministry, withdrawing their support. As a result, on 19 April, the
Governor sent a report to the President stating therein there were dissensions and defections in
the ruling party. He further stated that in view of the withdrawal of the support by the said

7|Page
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

legislators, the chief Minister, Bommai did not command a majority in the Assembly and, hence,
it was inappropriate under the Constitution, to have the State administered by an Executive
consisting of Council of Ministers which did not command the majority in the state assembly.
He, therefore, recommended to the President that he should exercise power under Article 356(1).
However, on the next day seven out of the nineteen legislators who had allegedly written the said
letters to the Governor sent letters to him complaining that their signatures were obtained on the
earlier letters by misrepresentation and affirmed their support to the Ministry. The Chief Minister
and his Law Minister met the Governor the same day and informed him about the decision to
summon the Assembly, even by bringing forward the scheduled session, to prove the confidence
of assembly in his Ministry. To the same effect, he sent a telex message to the President. The
Governor however sent yet another report to the President on the same day i.e., 20-4-1989, and
stated that the Chief Minister had lost the confidence of the majority in the House and repeated
his earlier request for action under Article 356(1). On that very day, the President issued the
Proclamation in question with the recitals already referred to above. The Proclamation was,
thereafter approved by the Parliament as required by Article 356(3).A writ petition was filed on
26 April 1989 challenging the validity of the proclamation. A special bench of 3 judges of
Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition.

On 11 October 1991 the president issued a proclamation under Article 356(1) dismissing the
government of Meghalaya and dissolving the legislative assembly. The Proclamation stated that
the President was satisfied on the basis of the report from the Governor and other information
received by him that the situation had arisen in which the Government of the State could not be
carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The Government was dismissed
and the Assembly was dissolved accordingly.

On 7 August 1988, the president issued the proclamation on the basis of Governor Report and
dismissed the Government of Nagaland thus dissolving the Legislative assembly. Vamuzo,
leader of opposition party, challenged the validity of Proclamation in Gauhati High Court. A

8|Page
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice and Hansaria, J. heard the petition. The Bench
differed on the effect and operation of Article 74 (Constitution of India)(2) and hence the matter
was referred to the third Judge. But before the third learned judge could hear the matter, the
Union of India moved this Court for grant of special leave which was granted and the
proceedings in the High Court were stayed.

On account of the Babri Masjid demolition, communal riots spread out in the entire country. The
Central Government banned RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal. The Central Government dismissed the
BJP Governments of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. As a result, on 15
December 1992, the president issued the proclamation under Article 356 dismissing the State
Governments and dissolving the Legislative Assemblies Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and
Rajasthan. The validity of these proclamations was challenged by the Writs in the appropriate
High Courts. The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the petition, but writ petition relating to
Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh were withdrawn to Supreme Court.

All the above said petition contained similar question of law and therefore they were heard
conjointly by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The arguments in the S.R. Bommai’s case
commenced in the first week of October 1993 and were concluded in the last week of December
1993.

Issues of the case:

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India raised serious question of law relating to Proclamation of

President's Rule and dissolution of Legislative assemblies according to Article 356 of the
Constitution of India.

9|Page
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

The first and most important question which the Supreme Court had to determine was whether
the Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 was justiciable and if so to what extent.

The second contention was whether the President has unfettered powers to issue Proclamation
under Article 356(1) of the Constitution.

It was contended that since the Proclamation under Article 356[1] would be issued by the
President on the advice of the Council of Ministers given under Article 74(1) of the Constitution
and since Clause [2] of the said Article bars inquiry into the question whether any, and if so,
what advice was tendered by Ministers to the President, judicial review of the reasons which led
to the issuance of the Proclamation also stands barred. Whether the Legislature dissolved by the
Presidents proclamation can be revived if the president proclamation is set aside. Whether the
validity of the Proclamation issued under Article 356(1) can be challenged even after it has been
approved by both Houses of Parliament under Article 356(3).

It was also contended that whether any relief’s can be granted when the validity of proclamation
is challenged and whether the court can grant an interim stay against holding the fresh election.

Whether a president can dissolve the legislature without having obtained the approval of both the
Houses of the Legislature. It was contended that Secularism being a basic feature of the
Constitution, a State government can be dismissed if it is guilty of nonsecular acts.

Arguments of Petitioners:

10 | P a g e
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

It was contended by Mr. Soli Sorabjee, Senior Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that
the power exercisable under Article 356(1) of the Constitution is neither unlimited nor
unfettered; that for the exercise of that power the existence of jurisdictional prerequisite that the
Government or the administration of the State, could not be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution, is essential; and that for the exercise of that power subjective
satisfaction of an objective reality is a sine qua non. In order to show as to when this power was
intended to be exercised, the learned Counsel referred to the Constituent Assembly Debates (Vol.
9, page 177) wherein Dr. B.R Ambedkar has said thus:— “In regard to the general debate which
has taken place in which it has been suggested that these Articles are liable to be abused, I may
say that I do not altogether deny that there is a possibility of these Articles being abused or
employed for political purposes. But that objection applies to every part of the Constitution
which gives power to the Centre to override the provinces. In fact I share the sentiments
expressed by my honourable friend Mr. Gupte yesterday that the proper thing we ought to expect
is that such Articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead letter.
If at all they are brought into operation, I hope the President who is endowed with these powers
will take proper precautions before actually suspending the administration of the provinces. I
hope the first thing he will do would be to issue a mere warning to a province that has erred, that
things were not happening in the way in which they were intended to happen in the Constitution.
If that warning fails, the second thing for him to do will be to order an election allowing the
people of the province to settle matters by themselves. It is only when these two remedies fail
that he would resort to this Article. It is only in those circumstances he would resort to this
Article. I do not think we could then say that these Articles were imported in vain or that the
President had acted wantonly.”

Mr. Soli Sorabjee also referred to Sarkarla Commission Report which, on this aspect of the
matter, has stated that the exercise of power under Article 356 of the Constitution must be
limited to rectifying “failure of the Constitutional machinery in the State.” The learned Counsel
further drew our attention to the illustrations of improper invoking of Article 356 of the

11 | P a g e
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

Constitution of India, in the Commission's Report particular emphasis being laid on the
following:—

“i) A situation of maladministration in a State when a duly constituted Ministry enjoying

majority support in the Assembly, is in office. Imposition of President's Rule in such a situation
will be extraneous to the purpose for which the power under Article 356 has been conferred. It
was made indubitably clear by the Constitution framers that this power is not meant to be
exercised for the purpose of securing good Government.

ii) When a Ministry resigns or is dismissed on losing its majority support in the Assembly and
the Governor recommends, imposition of President's rule without exploring the possibility of
installing an alternative Government enjoying such support or ordering fresh elections.

iii) Where, despite the advice of a duly constituted Ministry which has not been defeated on the
floor of the House, the Governor declines to dissolve the Assembly and without giving the
Ministry an opportunity to demonstrate its majority support through the
‘floor test’, recommends its supersession and imposition of President's rule merely on his
subjective assessmentthat the Ministry no longer commands the confidence of the Assembly.

vi) The use of the power under Article 356 will be improper if, in the illustrations given in the
preceding paragraphs 6.4.10,6.4.11 and 6.4.12, the President gives no prior warning or
opportunity to the State Government to correct itself. Such awarning can be dispensed with only
in cases of extreme urgency where failure on the part of the Union to take immediateaction under
Article 356, will lead to disastrous consequences.

viii) The use of this power to sort out internal differences or intra-party problems of the ruling
party would not be constitutionally correct.”

12 | P a g e
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

 Respondent’s Arguments:

On the other hand, according to the learned Attorney General there were two aspects of the
matter viz. (i) justifiability and the parameters within which the Court can examine the matter,
and (ii) merits. It was argued by the learned Attorney General that the satisfaction of the
President being made deliberately subjective, cannot be tested by reference to objective tests and
that the sufficiency of the grounds on which the order was based was beyond judicial scrutiny.
On the question of justifiability, the learned Attorney General very fairly conceded that if the
Government states that action was taken on a specified ground and that ground falls completely
outside the scope of Article 356 of the Constitution, the Court would have jurisdiction to
interfere or if the Government's own disclosure reveals that extraneous or collateral purposes are
sought to be achieved then again, the Court can interfere; but if the grounds disclosed have
relevance or reasonable or rational nexus to the satisfaction reached under Article 356 of the
Constitution, then the sufficiency or otherwise of the grounds on which the impugned action was
based cannot be gone into. 11. The learned Attorney General further contended that if what is
disclosed is not the only ground and if all the grounds are not before the Court, the Court will
have no power to ask for the disclosure of the undisclosed grounds, nor has it the power to
interfere with the impugned action by reason of such non-disclosure. The learned Attorney
General emphasised that the decision under Article 356(1) of the Constitution to issue a
proclamation being largely a political Judgment based on diverse and varied factors, such a
decision cannot be regarded as one based on “judicially discoverable and manageable standards”
and further, if the facts disclosed lie in the field or an area purely of a political nature, it would in
fact be prohibited field or area for the court even to enter.

The extent to which interference, by Court, with a decision underArticle 356(1) of the
Constitution was permissible, the learned Attorney General, as well, relied upon the Supreme
Court Judgment in Rajasthan Case (supra), inviting our attention, in particular, to paras 28, 34,
75 and 83 in the Judgment of Beg, C.J and paras 127, 146, 169, 177 and 208 in the Judgments of

13 | P a g e
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

Chandrachud, J. Bhagwati, J. Goswamy, J. Untwalia, J. and Fazal Ali, J. respectively. On the

point that the decision of issuing a Proclamation is largely a political Judgment and is” not based
on “judicially discoverable and manageable standards”, the learned Attorney General referred to
paras 143 & 144 and paras 177 & 179 in the Judgments of Bhagwati, J. standards”, the learned
Attorney General referred to paras 143 & 144 and paras 177 & 179 in the Judgments of
Bhagwati, J. and Untwalia J. respectively. 13. In the light of the arguments of learned Counsel
for the parties, the first question which calls for our consideration and decision is, whether the
Proclamation issued under Article 356(1) of the Constitution is justiciable, and if so, to what
extent? Though arguments addressed by learned Counsel on the said question, to begin with,
were wide ranging, yet ultimately there was a near unanimity among them as to the answer to the
question inasmuch as the learned Counsel for the parties were agreed that the proclamation is
justiciable in the sense that its validity could be gone into by the Court to see if the proclamation
satisfied the constitutional requirement. The basic Judgment on the subject is Rajasthan Case
(supra) which dealt with several Suits and Writ Petitions filed in the Supreme Court
apprehending dissolution of the State Assemblies by the President in exercise of his powers
under Article 356(1) of the Constitution. Though those Suits and Writ Petitions in which
injunctive reliefs were sought against the Union of India from taking action under Article 356 of
the Constitution on the basis of a letter written by the then Home Minister Sri Charan Singh and
certain speech made by the then Law Minister Sri Shanti Bhushan, were held to be not
maintainable.

Judgements:

The SC laid down certain guidelines so as to prevent the misuse of A356 of the constitution.

14 | P a g e
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

1. The majority enjoyed by the Council of Ministers shall be tested on the floor of the
House.

2. Centre should give a warning to the state and a time period of one week to reply.

3. The court cannot question the advice tendered by the CoMs to the President but it can
question the material behind the satisfaction of the President. Hence, Judicial Review will
involve three questions only:

a. Is there any material behind the proclamation

b. Is the material relevant.
c. Was there any mala fide use of power.
4. If there is improper use of A356 then the court will provide remedy.
5. Under Article 356(3) it is the limitation on the powers of the President. Hence, the
president shall not take any irreversible action until the proclamation is approved by the
Parliament i.e. he shall not dissolve the assembly.

6. Article 356 is justified only when there is a breakdown of constitutional machinery and
not administrative machinery

Article 356 shall be used sparingly by the center, otherwise it is likely to destroy the
constitutional structure between the center and the states. Even Dr. Ambedkar envisaged it to
remain a 'dead letter' in the constitution.

Based on the report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre–state Relations(1988), the Supreme
Court in Bommai case (1994) enlisted the situations where the exercise of power under Article
356 could be proper or improper.

Imposition of President’s Rule in a state would be proper in the following situations:

 Where after general elections to the assembly, no party secures a majority, that is, Hung
Assembly.

15 | P a g e
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

 Where the party having a majority in the assembly declines to form a ministry and the
governor cannot find a coalition ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.

 Where a ministry resigns after its defeat in the assembly and no other party is willing or
able to form a ministry commanding a majority in the assembly.

 Where a constitutional direction of the Central government is disregarded by the state

government.

 Internal subversion where, for example, a government is deliberately acting against the
Constitution and the law or is fomenting a violent revolt.

 Physical breakdown where the government willfully refuses to discharge its

constitutional obligations endangering the security of the state.

The imposition of President’s Rule in a state would be improper under the following situations:

 Where a ministry resigns or is dismissed on losing majority support in the assembly and
the governor recommends imposition of President’s Rule without probing the possibility
of forming an alternative ministry.

 Where the governor makes his own assessment of the support of a ministry in the
assembly and recommends imposition of President’s Rule without allowing the ministry
to prove its majority on the floor of the Assembly.

 Where the ruling party enjoying majority support in the assembly has suffered a massive
defeat in the general elections to the Lok Sabha such as in 1977 and 1980.

 Internal disturbances not amounting to internal subversion or physical breakdown.

 Maladministration in the state or allegations of corruption against the ministry or

stringent financial exigencies of the state.

16 | P a g e
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

 Where the state government is not given prior warning to rectify itself except in case of
extreme urgency leading to disastrous consequences.

 Where the power is used to sort out intra-party problems of the ruling party, or for a
purpose extraneous or irrelevant to the one for which it has been conferred by the
Constitution.

Conclusion:

This case in the history of the Indian Constitution has great implications on Centre-State
Relations. It is in this case that the Supreme Court boldly marked out the paradigm and
limitations within which Article 356 has to function. The Supreme Court said that Article 356 is
an extreme power and is to be used as a last resort in cases where it is manifest that there is an
impasse and the constitutional machinery in a State has collapsed. The views expressed by the
court in this case are similar to the concern showed by the Sarkaria Commission.

The principles laid down in this case put a bar on the dismissal of the state government by the
centre for political gains.

It was in this case that the court firmly laid down certain provision relating to Presidential
proclamation issued Under Article 356. The Court held that Presidential proclamation under
Article 356 is not absolute and the power conferred by Article 356 on president is conditioned
power. The Supreme Court held that presidential proclamation is not immune from judicial
review. Moreover, if the presidential proclamation is held unconstitutional, the legislature
dissolved by the presidential proclamation can be revived. It was also contended that the Articles
74(2) bars the court from inquiring about the material on the basis of which the proclamation is
issued, but the court rejected this contention.

In spite of such bold and illustrious judgement delivered by the Supreme Court, people criticized
that the Court took such a long time to deliver the verdict and allowed, in the cases of Karnataka
and Meghalaya, the illegality to be perpetuated and ultimately deprive the citizens of those states
to be governed by their chosen representative. Secondly, it was also criticized that the concept of
secularism had been misinterpreted only regard to Hindu fundamentalism.

17 | P a g e
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

Still, the judgement delivered by the Supreme Court put a check on arbitrary dismissal of state
governments in future and strengthen the federal structure of Indian polity which had hitherto
been damaged on several occasions particularly when different political parties were in power at
the Centre and the State.

Article 356 has been summed up in this case and has given extraordinary powers to the president
which must be used sparingly during the situation of protection of a democratic form of
Government and to prevent paralysis of the political process.50 ‘The majority view in this case is
the test laid down in the Barium Chemicals Ltd.51 and the decisions for adjudging the validity of
administrative action, which cannot be for testing the satisfaction of the President under Article
356. The dissenting by, Sawant and Kuldip Singh JJ., held that the parameters of judicial review
developed in the field of administrative law are not antithetical in the field of constitutional law
and they equally apply to the domain covered by Constitutional Law.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

 A.I.R. – All India Reporter

 S.C.C. – Supreme Court Cases

WEBSITES:

 www.indiankanoon.org
 www.judis.nic.in
 www.scconline.com
 www.legalsutra.com
 www.westlawindia.com

18 | P a g e
 BASICS OF CASE LAW PROJECT 2018-
19

 www.casemine.com

19 | P a g e