Download Testbook App

SR Bommai Case:
UPSC Polity Notes
Supreme Court's
Judgments and
Significance
SR Bommai represented the Janata Dal as Karnataka's Chief Minister from August 13, 1988, until April
21, 1989. On April 21, 1989, his administration was deposed under Article 356 of the Constitution, and
President's Rule was instituted on the grounds that the present government lacked a majority due to the
defection of a significant number of MLAs. SR Bommai launched a lawsuit against Governor P
Venkatasubbaiah for dismissing his administration and imposing President's Rule.

The Sarkaria Commission advised that Article 356 be utilized only in severe cases, as a last resort when
all other alternatives have been exhausted or fail to prevent or remedy a breakdown of constitutional
machinery in the states, as was also the goal of the Constitution framers all along.

In this article, we will understand the details and significance of the Bommai Case. The landmark verdict
in the SR Bommai Vs Union of India case in 1994 has played an important role during any political crisis.
All these dimensions are important for competitive examinations like IAS, IPS, IFS etc. Considering this,
the Testbook provides the best quality notes for UPSC Exams. Study major topics of Indian Polity from
the perspective of UPSC Exams.

Also, check out the Major Amendment of the Constitution here.

What Is The SR Bommai Case?

• S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal administration of Karnataka from August
13, 1988, until April 21, 1989. On April 21, 1989, his administration was fired under Article 356
of the Constitution, and President's Rule was imposed, which was a regularly utilized strategy at
the time to keep opposition parties at bay.
• The dismissal was justified by the fact that the Bommai government had lost its majority due to
large-scale defections arranged at the time by several party leaders. Despite Bommai's
presentation of a copy of the resolution passed by the Janata Dal Legislature Party, Governor P.
Venkatasubbaiah refused to allow him to test his majority in the Assembly.
• Ramakrishna Hegde served as chief minister of Karnataka when the Janata Party won the 1985
Assembly elections. Hegde was replaced in 1988 by SR Bommai. After the merger of the Janta
party with Janata Dal, new members were inducted into the ministry of Bommai.
 Download Testbook App

• Along with 19 other members of the Legislative Assembly, Janata Dal politician KR Molakery
delivered a letter to Governor P Venkatasubbaiah in September 1988 announcing their decision
to stop supporting the Bommai government.
• The government of Bommai was not given a chance to prove the majority and the centre used
Article 356 to dismiss the state government and the president's rule was also imposed.
• Bommai's government was dismissed because the government lost its majority as a result of
widespread defections, arranged by various party leaders.
• Later, despite the fact that the chief minister gave the governor a copy of the resolution adopted
by the Janata Dal Legislature Party, Governor P Venkatasubbaiah refused to give Bommai the
chance to test his majority in the Assembly.
• Bommai went to the Supreme Court when the high court was unable to provide her with any
relief. By outlining constraints, the Apex Court put a halt to the arbitrary removal of state
governments under Article 356.

Significance of the S R Bommai Case vs Union of India case

The case put an end to the arbitrary removal of state governments by a hostile Central authority. The
judgment also stated unambiguously that the Assembly floor is the only place where the majority of the
government of the day should be challenged, rather than the Governor's subjective opinion, who is usually
referred to as the Central government's agent. "The Chief Minister of any State who has to execute his
constitutional obligations would be in constant fear of the Proclamation falling on him since he would not
know whether he would continue in office or not," the Court stated.

Important Facts of the SR Bommai case

• Sr Bommai was the Chief Minister of the Janata Dal administration in Karnataka from 13 August
1988 to 21 April 1989.
• His administration was dissolved on April 21, 1989, under Article 356 of the constitution, and
president's rule was formed in what was then a party-dominated way to keep the opposing party
at bay.
• The dismissal was predicated on the fact that the administration had lost its majority due to
large-scale defections arranged at the time by several party leaders.
• Despite receiving a copy of the Janata Dal legislative party's resolution, then-governor P
Venkatasubbaiah refused to allow him to test his majority in the assembly.

What did the Supreme Court do?

On March 11, 1994, a nine-judge Supreme Court Constitution Bench issued a historic judgment that, in
some ways, put a halt to the arbitrary removal of State administrations under Article 356 by imposing
limits. It took nearly five years for the case, which would become one of the most cited whenever hung
legislatures were restored and parties fought for power, to achieve a logical conclusion. Article 356
empowers the President to proclaim a state of emergency. if he considers that the state cannot be managed
in accordance with constitutional principles. The president may act on a report from the state governor or
otherwise.
Page - 2
 Download Testbook App

Check Important Articles of the Indian Constitution here.

President's rule or state emergency

• Within two months of their issuing, parliamentary approval and durations must be given by a
simple majority of both houses of Parliament.
• When the parliament authorizes the president's rule for the following six months, it can be
extended for a maximum of three years with the parliament's authorization every six months for
a total of three years. The president can only spin it on his own.
• Article 355 delegates to the central government the task of ensuring that each state's
administration is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.

Emergency Provisions

Part XVIII of the Indian Constitution, from Article 352 to 360, contains Emergency provisions of the
Constitution. These laws enable the Central Government to efficiently respond to any exceptional
circumstance.

• National Emergency:
o Article 352 empowers the president to proclaim a national emergency if the security of
India or a portion of it is jeopardized by war, external attack, or armed insurrection.
o Even before the onset of war, armed revolt, or external attack, the President may
proclaim a national emergency.
o When a national emergency is proclaimed due to 'war' or 'foreign aggression,' it is
referred to as a 'External Emergency.' When it is proclaimed on the grounds of 'armed
insurrection,' however, it is termed as 'Internal Emergency.'
• Financial Emergency:

•
o Article 360 authorizes the president to declare a Financial Emergency if he believes that
a situation has emerged that threatens India's financial stability or credit, or any portion
of its territory.
o A declaration of financial emergency must be ratified by both Houses of Parliament
within two months of its issuance.
o Once passed by both chambers of Parliament, the Financial Emergency lasts
indefinitely until repealed.

Also, check out the Indra Sawhney case in detail here.

What does the Supreme Court Judgment say?

• The ruling determined that the President's power to depose a state government is not absolute.
According to the judgment, the President should only exercise his/her power when both Houses
of Parliament has authorized his/her proclamation.
• According to the Court, until then, the President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly by
suspending the provisions of the Constitution dealing with the Legislative Assembly. "The
Page - 3
 Download Testbook App

Legislative Assembly is not automatically dissolved. It should be utilized only when absolutely
necessary to fulfill the Proclamation's objectives "According to the Court of Appeal.
• In the Bommai case, the nine-judge Bench made decisions on a number of matters pertaining to
the constitutional restrictions on the application of Article 356.
• The court recognised the federal system established by the Constitution and established a
series of rules to limit the Center's ability to dissolve a state government.
• The court's decision established the rule that a floor test would be the sole method for
determining the level of support a certain state government receives.
• The court also decided that a President's Rule proclamation's legality can be challenged in
court.
• According to the court, there must be a total collapse of the constitutional machinery before the
President is given unrestricted authority to dissolve a state government

What happens if Parliament does not ratify the Presidential

proclamation?

"If the Proclamation is rejected or not accepted by both Houses of Parliament, it will expire at the end of
the two-month period. In such a case, the previously abandoned government reappears. The Legislative
Assembly, which had been dormant, has been resurrected "According to the Court of Appeal.
Furthermore, the Court made it quite clear that a Presidential Proclamation issued in accordance with
Article 356 is subject to judicial scrutiny.

Check out the Difference Between Presidential & Parliamentary Form of Government here.

Judgments

• The ruling determined that the President's power to depose a state government is not absolute.
• According to the judgement, the president should only exercise his power when both chambers
of parliament have ratified his proclamation establishing her rule.
• According to the court, the president can only suspend the legislative assembly by suspending
the constitutional rules governing legislative assemblies.
• If both houses do not ratify the declaration, it will expire after two months and the deposed
administration would be reinstalled.
• The suspended legislative assembly has also been reinstated.
• The supreme court further stated that the implementation of Article 356 is subject to judicial
scrutiny.
• The concept of floor tests was also introduced by the judgement. The bench interpreted that the
final test of the majority is not held in the Raj Bhavan but on the floor of the House while citing
Article 164 (2), which mandates that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to
the Legislative Assembly of the State.
• The Bommai judgement had noted that the position would be unquestionably evident if one
merely remembers the democratic ideal underlying the Constitution and the fact that the
Legislative Assembly, and not the Governor, reflects the will of the people.

Page - 4
 Download Testbook App

The Decision of the Supreme Court

• According to Dr BR Ambedkar's words in the article, Article 356 gives the president power. He
reasoned that emergency situations would attract the most unusual people. In addition, the
court concurred with the Sarkaria commission's recommendations about the employment of
Article 356. The panel suggested that, before using article 356 (1), the state be notified in
certain circumstances.
• Article 356 does not expressly address the dissolution of the legislature; nonetheless, such
powers are employed in article 356 (1)(a), articles 174 (2)(b), and the president transfers the
rights and obligations to both the government and governors under article 356 (1)(a).
• According to the court that coordinated the competence to dissolve the legislature, Article 356
(3) requires the proclamation to be presented to the houses of parliament. Prior to the
parliament's ratification of the declaration, the president has the authority under article 356(1)(c)
to contradict the legislature.

Study Important Articles of the Constitution of India here.

Other cases heard by the Supreme Court in Bommai's case

• When the nine-judge bench started looking at the legitimacy of a Karnataka proclamation, it also
looked at similar proclamations from other states.
• The Nagaland administration was ousted in 1988 as a consequence of the Governor's report to
the President. The Governor claimed horse-trading and the connections of some legislators with
rebels as the key reasons for implementing President's Rule.
• In October 1991, the President issued a proclamation dismissing the Meghalaya government,
claiming unconstitutional control. The assembly was immediately abolished.
• The Supreme Court emphasized the frequency with which Article 356 is used to dissolve
governments in states and Union territories in its judgement in Bommai. Up to 1991, President's
Rule had been imposed on 82 occasions in states by invoking or resorting to Article 356, while
President's Rule had been imposed on 13 occasions in union territories. On 23 of the 95
instances, the Assembly was dissolved at the request of the CMs or due to their resignations.

Check the Other Notes of Polity for Competitive Exams here.

When was the impact of the Bommai Judgement first seen?

In one of the first examples of the case's impact, the A.B. Vajpayee administration was forced to
reconstruct a government that had been fired in 1999. The Rabri Devi administration was reinstalled on
March 8, 1999, as it became clear that the Central government would lose in the Rajya Sabha on the issue.
Later, whenever a hung Assembly and the associated exercise of government formation came up, the
Bommai case was brought up, making it one of the most referenced judgements in the country's political
history.

Page - 5
 Download Testbook App

Floor Test to Prove Majority

• Bommai's judgement definitively cemented the floor test's supremacy in assessing the ruling
party's support.
• According to Justices Reddy and Agrawal, a floor test is a legal method of demonstrating
majority when a government is believed to have lost majority. "Wherever there is doubt whether
the council of ministers has lost the confidence of the House, the only way of testing it is on the
floor of the House, except in an extraordinary situation where, due to all-pervasive violence, the
Governor comes to the conclusion and records the same in his report that a free vote is not
possible in the House for the reasons mentioned by him," the judges wrote.
• Prior to the Governor making any recommendations under Article 356, the two judges wrote
extensively on the significance of a floor test. "If only one recalls the democratic notion
underpinning the Constitution and the reality that it is the legislative assembly, not the Governor,
that expresses the will of the people," the judges stated, arguing that the floor test is required.
• The court ruled in favor of Bommai, declaring the proclamation invalid and unconstitutional. By
the time the judgement was released, however, Karnataka's legislative assembly had been
elected, and a new House had been created.

Als0, check out the Types of majorities in the Indian Parliament (Article 249) here!

Issues in Bommai’s case and the six judgments

• Six of the nine Supreme Court justices who heard the case issued separate decisions, judging
on various aspects of the arguments raised. All agreed, however, that the use of Article 356 was
not beyond the reach of the constitutional courts and was open to judicial review.
• The justices emphasized that the authority placed de jure in the President but de facto in the
Council of Ministers under Article 356 had the latent ability to emasculate the two core aspects
of the Constitution, describing democracy and federalism as parts of the basic structure of the
Constitution.
• The judges also asserted that the federal principle, social pluralism, and pluralist democracy,
which serve as the foundation of our Constitution, require judicial review of the proclamation
issued under Article 356 to be not only an absolute necessity, but also a stringent duty, and that
the exercise of power under the said provision is limited to the purpose and circumstances
mentioned therein and nothing else.
• According to Justice SR Pandian, Article 356 should be used rarely and only when the
President is totally convinced that a state's government cannot be carried out in accordance
with the requirements of the Constitution.

Also, check out the Maneka Gandhi Case here.

Recent cases of alleged misuse

Page - 6
 Download Testbook App

Arunachal Pradesh

In 2016, the Governor shut down the incumbent Arunachal Pradesh government under Article 356 after
the majority party's 21 MLAs defected to another party and the Governor called the Assembly earlier than
scheduled in order to destabilize the State administration. The Supreme Court of Arunachal Pradesh
reinstated the Nabam Tuki Government while criticizing the Governor for "humiliating the elected
Government of the day." It also advocated for a floor test to decide the majority of the government.

Uttarakhand

The Central Government established President's Rule in Uttarakhand the same year, only a day before the
State Assembly floor test. The Center justified its actions by noting a sting operation in which the Chief
Minister was caught bribing some of the MLAs. The Supreme Court ordered a floor test, which resulted
in the restoration of the disbanded government.

Jammu Kashmir

Since June 2018, the state of Jammu and Kashmir has been under President's Rule, which was lifted on
October 30, 2019 so that the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 may be adopted. The state
was divided into two union regions, Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. Article 367 was changed to allow
the Act to be passed. As a result of this act, the Constituent Assembly became equal to the state legislature.
Because the state was under the power of the President at the time, the Governor was the State Legislature's
representative. As a consequence, with the Governor's agreement, the Central Government passed the
aforementioned Act, which separated the state into two Union Territories.

Study in detail, the Habeas Corpus Case here!

Testbook provides a set of comprehensive notes for different competitive exams. Testbook is always on
the top of the list because of its best quality assured products like live tests, mocks, Content pages, GK
and current affairs videos and much more. To study more topics for UPSC, download the Testbook App
now!

Page - 7