S.R. Bommai Case (1994)
– President’s Rule and Federalism
Background of the Case
Article 356 empowers the President to impose President’s Rule in a State if the constitutional machinery fails.
Historically, this provision was frequently misused by the Union Government to:
- Dismiss State governments
- Serve political interests rather than constitutional necessity
Several proclamations of President’s Rule were challenged, including those imposed in:
- Nagaland (1988)
- Karnataka (1989) – involving the Bommai government
- Meghalaya (1991)
- Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh (1992) – post Babri Masjid demolition
These challenges were heard together by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court.
Core Constitutional Questions
- Is the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 subject to judicial review?
- What is the scope and limitation of Article 356?
- Is secularism a basic feature of the Constitution?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Court delivered a historic, doctrine-setting verdict.
(a) Judicial Review of President’s Rule
The Supreme Court held that:
- A proclamation under Article 356(1) is subject to judicial review
- The President’s satisfaction is not absolute or immune
This ended the notion of unfettered executive discretion.
(b) Burden of Proof on the Union Government
The Court ruled that:
- The Union Government must prove that:
- Relevant material existed
- Constitutional machinery had actually failed
Thus: Article 356 cannot be invoked on mere political considerations.
(c) Article 74(2) Is Not a Shield
Although Article 74(2) bars courts from inquiring into the advice tendered by Ministers, the Court clarified that:
- Courts can examine the material basis of the President’s satisfaction
- What is protected is the advice, not the existence or relevance of material
(d) Restoration of Dismissed Governments
The Court held that:
- Even if a proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament
- If it is later found unconstitutional, the Court can:
- Restore the Legislative Assembly
- Reinstate the Council of Ministers
- If it is later found unconstitutional, the Court can:
This gave real teeth to judicial review.
(e) Secularism Declared Part of the Basic Structure
The Court made a landmark declaration: Secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution
Therefore → Anti-secular acts by a State Government → Can constitute a valid ground for imposing President’s Rule
This was applied to uphold President’s Rule in: Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh (1992)
Application to Specific States
| State | Verdict |
|---|---|
| M.P., Rajasthan, H.P. (1992) | President’s Rule upheld |
| Nagaland (1988) | Struck down |
| Karnataka (1989) | Struck down |
| Meghalaya (1991) | Struck down |
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Strengthened federalism
- Prevented arbitrary dismissal of State governments
- Clarified the true constitutional purpose of Article 356
- Elevated secularism to the level of basic structure
- Reinforced judicial supremacy in constitutional interpretation
Impact of the Judgement
- Brought a dramatic decline in misuse of Article 356
- Ensured Centre–State balance
- Made floor test the preferred method to test majority
- Enhanced democratic accountability
Place in Constitutional Evolution
| Case | Contribution |
|---|---|
| Kesavananda Bharati (1973) | Basic Structure doctrine |
| Bommai (1994) | Federalism & secularism protected |
| Later practice | Reduced misuse of Article 356 |
Summary
The S.R. Bommai Case (1994) subjected President’s Rule under Article 356 to judicial review, placed the burden of proof on the Union, allowed restoration of dismissed governments, and declared secularism as part of the basic structure, thereby safeguarding Indian federalism.