S.R.

Bommai
v.
Union of India

BETHI SIRI
 Facts-
S.R. 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 the 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 Venkata subbaiah refused
to allow him to test his majority in the assembly.
Karnataka High Court-
On 26th April 1989, a complaint was filed by S.R. Bommai to challenge the validity of the proclamation. A writ of Mandamus was also filed by the first petitioner, Shri S.R. Bommai along with three other petitioners who were members of the council of the Chief Minister. This petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Karnataka. This petition was filed as the Petitioners believed that they must have been given a chance to prove their majority through a floor test (It is a confidence motion which is done in the house to make sure if the government in power enjoys the support of the majority of the legislature). However, a panel of three judges of
the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the petition.
 Issues raised-
• Whether the imposition of the President’s rule in the six states was
constitutionally valid?
• Were there any political and mala-fide intentions behind the actions of the
council of ministers and the President?
• Whether the powers of the President under Article 356(1) stand unfettered?
• 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?
• 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?
Arguments given by the petitioner-
• Arguments Given by the Petitioner Bommai was denied the opportunity to prove
his majority.
• The command of the President’s rule was a mala fide political act. The mere fact
that there were widespread unrest and cases of torching and looting are no
grounds for forcing presidential control; hence it was illegitimate.
• The union administration had refused to disclose a certain amount of material
and information they had obtained, based on which the presidential rule was
imposed.
• The union administration has the duty to confess the information on which the
decision was taken, as the proclamations do not state much regarding such
material. This is supported by Article 74(2), as argued because the union of India
is not and cannot discharge its duties.
Arguments given by Respondent-
• The legal field of administration states the court’s legal power is to be exercised in the
legal spectrum of public administrations; limiting excess and misuse of power, and
abnormal use of force while curbing legal analysis to the extent where it stands
unconstitutional. When it comes to judicial decisions, it has limited scope. It includes
executive actions or legislation passed that infringe on a system of separation of powers
between the authorities, legislative, judiciary and state institutions. Generally, disputes
are defined through the preconditions that the law has set and, if they’re absent in
relation to the exercise of power by constitutional authorities, whether the courts are able
to examine if such conditions have been met. Also, when powers are committed to a
constitutional authority for a certain purpose, and the relevant authority utilizes the
powers to achieve an impermeable purpose under the guise of attaining the stated
objective, such use of power cannot be questioned.
• On behalf of the Indian union, it was argued that only under Article 74(1) of the Indian
Constitution, in the opinion of the cabinet, the President may declare a proclamation
under Article 356 and also conduct an inquiry to check whether the advice given by the
 Judgement-
This landmark decision finally placed limitations on the centre’s ability to impose
the President’s rule on the state. The court ruled that the President’s ability to
remove a state government is not absolute.
The ruling further stated that the President can only impose his rule once both
Houses of Parliament have authorised it, and until both Houses of Parliament have
approved it, the President can only suspend the legislative assembly. If both the
Houses of Parliament do not ratify it, it lapses after two months, the state
government’s dismissal is revived, and the legislative assembly, which had been
inactive until then, is likewise reactivated. The imposition of Article 356 is also
susceptible to judicial review, according to the Supreme Court.
 Analysis-
The court stated that federalism and secularism are crucial components of the
basic structure of the Constitution and the nation. The court also overturned the
ruling by the state of Rajasthan (in State of Rajasthan vs Union of India (1977)),
as the decision ruled that the President’s decision should not be susceptible to
judicial review but that the central government alone would state its validity.
Through this, the court recognized and addressed the political parties’ move to
disrupt the pluralistic form of democracy; hence, the judiciary operated and will
continue to operate as a watchdog to ensure there is no misuse of power.
Conclusion-
• The Bommai case decision put an end to the long process of the
central government dismissing the state government without cause.
Before this ruling, several political parties took advantage of the
constitutional framework to gain political mileage and settle scores
with their opponents. This case significantly curtailed a long-standing
practice.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the central government might use the
power granted by Article 356 of the Indian Constitution to sue the
state government if any of the state government’s policies are contrary
to the Constitution’s basic framework.