Introduction

A significant ruling concerning Article 356 of the Indian Constitution was rendered in the
1994 case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. Understanding the complexities of the center-
state relationship and the theory behind the fundamental construction of the Constitution
requires an understanding of this case, which is crucial. It clarified the parameters of Article
356's application and its scope, which in turn assisted in addressing a number of intricate
center-state relations difficulties. It also outlined the president's and governor's duties as well
as the fundamentals of the federal government. This decision, which was made by a bench of
nine justices and is regarded as a precedent for any future challenges, is regarded as historic.
All disputes which arise out of the misuse of Article 356 and in case of tussle between the
centre and a state. The judgement of this case was delivered by a constitutional bench
consisting of Justices S.R. Pandian, A.M. Ahmadi, J.S. Verma, P.B. Sawant, K. Ramaswamy,
S.C. Agarwal, Yogeshwar Dayal and B.P. Jeevan Reddy on 11th March 1994.

Background of the case: S.R. Bommai v. Union on India

History of article 365
Prior to comprehending the backdrop of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), it is
imperative that we grasp the historical basis of Article 356. One of the primary issues to be
decided by the Constituent Assembly after India gained independence from the British was
whether the country would adopt a federal or unitary form of government. The Constituent
Assembly members were divided into two schools of thought when it came to answering this
subject. According to the first school of thinking, India ought to have a federal form of
governance. Among those who subscribed to this school of thinking were K. Santhanam and
T.T. Karamchari. They thought that because federalism is ingrained in the Indian
Constitution so firmly, it cannot be changed unless we change the entire Constitution.
According to the second school of thinking, India deserves to have a unified government.
Among those who subscribed to this school of thought were Sitaram S. Jajoo, B.M. Gupte,
P.T. Chacko, and P.S. Deshmukh. These participants contend that although India is a
decentralised unitary state, it does not adhere to a unitary system in the traditional sense. This
is so because each state and the federal government have specific authorities. States are
granted certain authorities, while the central government is granted residual powers. For this
reason, they consider India to be more of a unitary state than a federal state. Dr. B. R.
Ambedkar, however, answered the question by pointing out that India has a unitary and
federal form of government. Saying that the states are obedient to the central is incorrect, he
said. He made it clear that, in most cases, the federal form of government will take
precedence, and that, in situations of emergency or war, the unitary form will take precedence
alone. Additionally, Dr. Ambedkar stated that Article 356 should only be applied in the most
extreme circumstances and should be regarded as a dead letter. Nevertheless, the
recommendations made by Dr. Ambedkar were ignored by the administrations that followed.
This is due to the fact that the ruling party has consistently utilised Article 356 to further their
own political rivalry by imposing President's authority in states that are governed by
opposing parties. The present case is also one of the examples in which this Article was
imposed arbitrarily by the centre.
Facts of the case
Under S.R. Bommai's direction, the Janata Party is the largest party in the Karnataka state
legislature and has formed the government. The Janata Dal was formed in September 1988 by
the merger of the Janata party and the Lok Dal. In less than two days, thirteen new members
joined the ministry. A few years later, Janata Dal politician K.R. Molakery left the party. He
presented Governor Pekentanti Venkatasubbaiah with a letter and nineteen other letters.
Legislators who were supposedly in favour of the ministry signed these letters, indicating that
they were ending their support. Consequently, the Governor reported the defections occurring
inside the party to the President on April 19. He said that as a result, the Bommai government
was unable to administer the country in accordance with the Constitution as the Chief
Minister did not have the backing of the majority of assembly members. As a result, he
recommended that the President use the authority granted by section 356 (1). On the other
hand, seven out of the nineteen lawmakers whose signatures were included in the letters the
governor had delivered to the president the next day claimed that their signatures had been
gained by deception and reaffirmed their support for the ministry. During their meeting with
the governor the same day, the chief minister and the law minister recommended that he call
an assembly and provide a chance for prove its majority. He sent the President a telex
message that had the same outcome.
On April 20, 1989, the Governor, however, issued the President a second report on the same
day, indicating that the Chief Minister had lost the support of most members of the House
and restating his previous request to take action under Article 356(1). On the same day that
the President sacked the Karnataka administration, the state was put under President's control.
In accordance with Article 356(3), the Parliament also approved the proclamation. S.R.
Bommai filed a case on April 26, 1989, contesting the proclamation's legality. Additionally,
the initial petitioner, Shri S.R. Bommai, along with three additional petitioners who were
member of council of chief minister. This petition was filed at the Karnataka High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners filed their petition because they felt that
they should have been given the opportunity to demonstrate their majority through a floor test
(a confidence motion is a procedure used in the house to determine if the majority of
lawmakers supports the government in power).
Nevertheless, the plea was denied by a three-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court.
Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh all had
comparable circumstances. In addition to imposing presidential authority in these states, the
president had disbanded the legislative assemblies. The president of Meghalaya dissolved the
government on October 11, 1991, in accordance with Article 356(1). According to the
proclamation, the Governor's report had convinced the President that the state of Meghalaya
had developed a situation where the government was not administering the state in
accordance with the provisions outlined in the Constitution. As a result, the Meghalaya
government was dissolved and the President's rule was enforced.
On August 7, 1988, the President terminated the governments of Nagaland based on the
report that the Governor had provided. The division bench of the High Court of Gauhati was
asked to rule on the legality of this declaration. But each judge had a distinct viewpoint of
their own, therefore the matter was referred to third judge. The Union administration sent the
case to the Supreme Court for a hearing before the third judge could consider it. Violence
broke out across the nation as a result of the Babri Masjid's demolition. Consequently, the
Union Government, led by P.V. Narasimha Rao, outlawed the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh
and the Vishva Hindu Parishad. The governments of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and
Himachal Pradesh were also overthrown by the Union Government. The High Courts of the
corresponding states heard challenges to the same's validity.
The applications submitted in the High Courts of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh were
withdrawn and appealed to the Supreme Court, leaving just the case filed in the Madhya
Pradesh High Court approved. The Karnataka High Court heard the petition that S.R.
Bommai filed, and the proceedings started on April 27, 1989, and ended on May 30, 1989.
On July 6, 1989, a three-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court ultimately rejected it. The
central government argued that the proclamation was legitimate and that it was only put into
effect with the approval of both houses of Parliament, despite the fact that it was challenged
on the basis of unconstitutionality. In order to support his claims, the Attorney General, who
spoke on behalf of the federal government, cited a number of Supreme Court rulings.
However, the Supreme Court finally handed down its decision in the case on March 11, 1994,
five years after it was first considered and discussed.

Issues raised
1) Whether the imposition of the President’s rule in the six states was
constitutionally valid?
2) Were there any political and mala-fide intentions behind the actions of the council
of ministers and the President?
3) Whether the powers of the President under Article 356(1) stand unfettered?
4) Are any proclamations under Article 356 subject to judicial review? If yes, to
what extent and what idea of scope will the powers of the court stand in an action
to review the President’s statements?
5) What does the President’s proclamation stating that a situation has arisen where
the state’s legislative functions cannot be in cooperation with the Constitution’s
provisions hold?