S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

Facts

A group of cases were heard together concerning the dismissal of State governments and dissolution of Legislative Assemblies through proclamations of President's Rule under Article 356 (including the Karnataka government headed by S.R. Bommai). The dismissals were challenged as arbitrary exercises of central power against duly elected State governments. Since fresh elections had already occurred in most affected States, the Court could grant no relief but was asked to lay down guidelines governing the exercise of power under Article 356.

Issues

• Whether a Proclamation issued under Article 356(1) is subject to judicial review, and on what grounds.
• Whether federalism and secularism form part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
• Whether the strength of a Ministry must be tested on the floor of the House rather than by the Governor's or President's subjective satisfaction.

Arguments

The States/petitioners argued that Article 356 was being abused to topple opposition-led governments, violating federalism, democracy and the elected mandate, and that the President's satisfaction was reviewable. The Union argued that the satisfaction under Article 356 was subjective, political and non-justiciable, and that the Centre was entitled to assess whether a State could be carried on in accordance with the Constitution.

Held

The Court held that the President's power under Article 356 is a conditional, not absolute, power and its exercise is subject to judicial review. A Proclamation can be struck down if it is mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds, and the burden lies on the Union to show relevant material existed. The proper test of a government's majority is a floor test in the Assembly, not the Governor's subjective opinion. The opinions affirmed that federalism and secularism are part of the basic structure, though the power of judicial review was traced principally to democracy and the separation of powers; courts could, in appropriate cases, restore a dismissed government.

Ratio decidendi

Power under Article 356 is conditional and judicially reviewable; the Proclamation is liable to be quashed where the satisfaction is mala fide or rests on irrelevant or extraneous material, and majority must ordinarily be tested on the floor of the House.

Significance

The leading and most-cited authority on Article 356 and centre-State relations; it ended the prior view that President's Rule was a non-justiciable political question, drastically curbed misuse of Article 356, endorsed the Sarkaria Commission's recommendations, and entrenched federalism within the basic structure. It remains the controlling precedent and was relied upon in later Governor/President's-Rule disputes such as Rameshwar Prasad (2006) and Nabam Rebia (2016).

Related