Case Analysis: S.R. Bommai Vs. Union Of India
- IJLLR Journal
- 1 hour ago
- 2 min read
Vanshita Malhotra, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat, Haryana
Citation: 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1
Bench: Kuldip Singh, P.B. Sawant, K. Ramaswamy, S.C. Agrawal, Yogeshwar Dayal, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, S.R. Pandian, A.M. Ahmadi
Introduction
The 1994 Supreme Court's ruling in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India is regarded as a constitutional landmark for Indian federalism and the separation of powers. Decided by a nine- judge bench, the case examined the scope of Article 356 of the Constitution, which allows the President to enforce President's Rule in instances where "the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution." By the late 1980s, Article 356 had shifted from its original intent as an emergency safeguard to a political weapon that the Union often used to overthrow governments led by opposition parties. The central issues before the court were whether the President's "satisfaction" in making such proclamations is safeguarded from judicial review and whether a State Assembly may be dissolved without first testing majority support on the House floor.
Background and Facts
Article 356 empowers the President, on being “satisfied” that a State government cannot function in accordance with the Constitution, to assume the State’s executive and legislative powers. Despite being conceived as a rare emergency provision, it was frequently exploited for political motives. The 1988 Sarkaria Commission had already warned that a floor test should ordinarilyprecedeanyproclamation. TheimmediatedisputearoseinKarnataka.Ramakrishna Hegde of the Janata Party became Chief Minister on 8 March 1985. After a 1988 merger of the Janata Party and the Lok Dal created the Janata Dal, factionalism and corruption allegations forced Hegde’s resignation, and S.R. Bommai was sworn in on 13 August 1988. In April 1989, nineteen legislators, eighteen from the Janata Dal and one from the Bharatiya Janata Party, wrote to Governor P. Venkatasubbaiah, withdrawing their support. Bommai quickly produced affidavits from seven of them reaffirming loyalty and requested a floor test. On 19 April, the Governor reported to President R. Venkataraman that the ministry lacked a majority and recommended dissolution of the Assembly under Article 174(2)(b).
