THE IMPACT OF SR BOMMAI v

UNION OF INDIA IN SHAPING

INDIAN FEDERALISM

Submitted to:
Ms Sayantani Bagchi
Assistant Professor
School of Legal Studies
CMR University

Submitted by:
Aanshika Bhushan
BBA LLB (Hons) Semester 3
Registration no. : 17BBLB001

Date of submission: 24/10/18

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

Abstract 2

Introduction 2-4
Statement of Problem 3
Research Questions 4
Research Methodology 4
Mode of Citation 4

Chapter 01 : Pre SR Bommai Scenario 5-7

Chapter 02 : Judgement in S.R Bommai 8-11

Chapter 03 : Post S.R Bommai Scenario 12-15

Chapter 04 : Conclusion 16-17

______________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Article 356 of the Constitution of India has been an immensely divisive provision since
its commencement, as it poses a threat to the federal structure of the nation. The notorious
nature of this Article was curtailed to a great extent in 1994 when the Supreme Court
pronounced its verdict in the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India. The nine judge bench
provided certain guiding principles that would regulate the operation of the President’s Rule
over the states (Article 356). This study revolves around the Bommai judgement, the state of
affairs before the judgement and the series of developments that took place post 1994 by way of
referring to judgements that cited the Bommai case. This study primarily reveals the foul game of
imposing President’s rule that was being played by the centre for their political gains and how
the judgement in Bommai’s case proved to be a milestone in the history of this controversial
article.
Keywords: Constitution of India, Article 356, President’s rule, S.R. Bommai, Federal structure
_____________________________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

The Drafting Committee and the Constituent Assembly that were bestowed with the duty to draft
a Constitution for India realized that their primary objective should be to unify the country and to
protect it from external threats. They were hence, convinced with the idea of making India a
federation with a powerful centre as that was the only way to make sure that India doesn’t break
further and recovers from the shambles of partition.
One of the most debated Article in the Constituent Assembly was Article 356. Despite being
fully aware of how Article 356’s counterpart found in Section 95 of the Government of India
Act, 1935 was misused by the Governor General in pre-independent India, the constituent
assembly went on to make it a part of our Constitution. The founding fathers however did also
contend that if this article is misused, it would not only rupture the centre-state relations but
would also ridicule the fundamental democratic ethics. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the chairman of the
Drafting Committee too anticipated that this article “would remain a dead letter” [1] and opined
that it would only be called into operation in the “rarest of rare cases”. [2]
The status quo however sees gross misuse of Article 356. Up till the year 2016, President’s rule
was imposed 115 times [3] and most times it was imposed by the centre according to their own
whims and fancies; while the states always asserted that it was violative of the federal structure
i.e. the autonomy of the states.
Thus, Article 356 of the Indian Constitution has always been the focal point of a wider debate of
the federal structure of government in Indian polity. [4] This provision which was supposed to be
a ‘safety valve’ proved to be a weapon in the hands on the Centre that was being used against the
states time and again to serve the interests of the political party ruling in the centre. Such misuse
is against constitutional aspirations and the recognized standards of federalism.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

This paper aims to study and analyze scenarios existing before and after S.R. Bommai’s
judgment and how they affected the scope of and the powers under Article 356, its impact on
further cases pertaining to the impugned article, and the role of this judgment to strengthen the
federal structure of the country.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
In order to understand the extent of this work, the researcher has framed some research
questions. This study is primarily aimed at answering the following questions:

1. What was the state of Indian federalism before S.R. Bommai v. Union of India?
2. How did the Supreme Court interpret Article 356 and what is its scope?
3. What were the major changes brought about by the judgement in Bommai’s case?

1
Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. IX, p.170
2
Ibid
3
Ministry of Home Affairs, Online RTI application's No. MHOME/R/2016/50960, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (May 03,
2016) , https://2nafqn3o0l6kwfofi3ydj9li-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads//2018/06/MHA-
Presidents-Rule.pdf
4
National Commission to review the working of the article 356 of Indian Constitution, 2001
 4. What was the state of Indian federalism after S.R Bommai v. Union of India?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research undertaken by the researcher is wholly a doctrinal research based on data collected
from various articles, books and websites.

MODE OF CITATION

The researcher has uniformly used the Bluebook, 19th edition as a mode of citation.
 CHAPTER 01

PRE S.R. BOMMAI SCENARIO

Before 1994, the Supreme Court of India witnessed a case that raised substantive questions about
Article 356. In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India [5], the court interpreted the Article in what
is called the narrow sense.
As the facts unfold, the Janata Party had assumed majority at the centre after defeating the
hitherto leading Congress party. In view of that, the Union Home Minister, Charan Singh sent
across a message to the Governors in the states of Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh,
Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and West Bengal threatening to dissolve the Legislative Assemblies in
these states by way of a Proclamation issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India,
forcing the State governments to conduct fresh elections owing to the massive defeat of the
Congress party. The States contended that the circumstance upon which President’s Rule was
being invoked was incoherent. The Supreme Court however, dismissed the petition of the States
and announced that Article 356 was not being used for mala fide intentions. Justice P.N.
Bhagwati while pronouncing the judgement said:

“The satisfaction of the President under Article 356 is a subjective one and cannot be tested by
reference to any objective tests or by judicially discoverable and manageable standards."[ 6]

Thus, the court ousted Article 356 from being subjected to judicial review and said that the court
cannot venture into the correctness or adequacy of the situation or circumstances that convinced
the central government to issue Proclamation under Article 356. To avoid criticism, the court
further also stated that if prima facie evidence pointing towards the President’s satisfaction being
based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds is found, it is only then that the court will have
jurisdiction to scrutinize any petitions filed for revocation of Proclamation issued under Article
356. The scope of keeping a check on the exercise of power under Article 356 became difficult,

5
State of Rajasthan v Union of India (1978) 3 SCC 592
6
Ibid
if not impossible because there was no way information regarding the circumstances or facts on
which the satisfaction is based could be known.
In A.K. Roy v Union of India [7] the court observed that the changes brought about in the Article
by way of the 44th Amendment Act, 1978 would have an impact on the Rajasthan judgement.
The amendment deleted Clause 5 of Article 356 and any observations recorded in the Rajasthan
case that were based on clause 5 did not hold good any longer.

Another important development that took place before the case of Bommai was ever heard, was
the establishment of the Sarkaria Commission. Fearing their loss of autonomy, the states
pressurized their respective Chief Ministers to prompt the centre to form a committee to study
centre – state relations in order to elucidate their status in the federation of India. As a result of
the constant nagging by the states, the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Indira Gandhi constituted
formation of a commission to study union – state relations that was headed by Justice Ranjit
Singh Sarkaria [8] which presented its report in the year 1988. The Sarkaria Commission
recommended that the extraordinary power contained in Article 356 should be used very
sparingly, only when all other alternatives have failed. In respect to the federal structure and
exercise of power under Article 356, the commission made the following major observations:

 Invoking Article 356 to solve any political crisis or intra party disturbances would be a
misuse of the Article;
 If any state calculatingly pursues policies that are unconstitutional, it would invite the
President’s rule but only after due warnings and chances to rectify have been given;
 Article 356 can be invoked if a state refuses to follow directions issued by the centre
during the period of emergency as given under Article 353 of the Constitution of India;
 The concept of a caretaker government was introduced wherein when no party forms a
majority in the assembly and fresh elections can be held, the outgoing ministry would be
asked to stay as a caretaker government till a new government is formed, provided that
the ministry was defeated due to majority or unconstitutional policy concerns and in no
way was connected to any practice of corruption or maladministration etc. The caretaker

7
A.K Roy v Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 271
8
Ministry of Home Affairs, Report of the Sarkaria Commission, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (Jun. 9, 1983),
http://interstatecouncil.nic.in/report-of-the-sarkaria-commission/#
 government must just perform the day to day jobs of the ministry and refrain from
making any policy decisions.
 Article 356 should be amended to clearly state that the Proclamation issued by the
President does not have the power to dissolve State Assemblies prior to the assent of
both the Houses

The Sarkaria Commission thus tried to remind the centre to follow the concept of co-
operative federalism in a hope to abstain them from abusing the power given under Article
356.
 CHAPTER 02

JUDGEMENT IN S.R BOMMAI

The judgment delivered by 9 judge’s special Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in
S.R. Bommai v Union of India [9] changed the whole course of Article 356. This decision
overruled the judgement given in State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India [10] as the court
proceeded to scrutinize all aspects of the Article and reduced the scope and power exercised
under it. Though the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission did not have a binding
force, the Supreme Court took the recommendations into consideration and respectfully
endorsed them. [11]

In 1989, the Janata Dal formed the government in Karnataka State Legislative Assembly
headed by S.R. Bommai. The apple of discord came into picture when a number of
legislators defected from the party and it became difficult to assess if the Government
formed under the Chief Minister, S.R. Bommai still assumed majority in the House. Bommai
asked the Governor to call for a meeting of the House so that he could prove his majority on
the floor of the house. The governor ignored that suggestion and went on to intimate the
President to impose President Rule in Karnataka; and the President did issue a proclamation
in the same effect.
Bommai filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court challenging the validity of the
Proclamation issued by the President. The court dismissed the petition so filed but opined
that Article 356(1) is not absolutely out of the realm of judicial review and the court can
assess the basis of the President’s ‘satisfaction’ to be based only on rational facts and
circumstances. The extent of judicial inquiry was therefore limited to an assessment whether
the divulged reasons bear any cogent nexus to the proclamation issued under Article 356.

9
S.R Bommai v Union of India AIR 1994 SC 1918, (1994) 3 SCC 1
10
Supra no. 5
11
Hon’ble Justice Sawant J. ‘We respectfully endorse the first measure viz. of warning to which the president
should resort before rushing to exercise of the power under article 356(1)’, SR Bommai v. Union of India ( Mar. 11,
1994), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60799/
 When the case came to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the 9 judge bench realized that the only
way to curb the abuse of federal principles is by way of an expanded scope of judicial
intervention. A third party involvement in the Centre – State hostility was finally sought
necessary. On the basis of agreement among the judges the following rulings can be
enunciated in relation to Article 356 (1) and the scope of judicial review there under:

 The proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review on grounds of

mala fide intentions.
 The contention of the Governors stating that the advice tendered by the ministers to
the President cannot be inquired into by any court [12] was held to not bar the scrutiny
of the material based on which imposition of President’s Rule took place. The centre
would thus have to justify the reasons behind issuance of Proclamation.
 If the Proclamation is found unconstitutional or invalid, the Court will have
jurisdiction to restore status quo ante and therefore have the power to revive
dissolved or suspended Legislative Assemblies. The exercise of this power by the
Court is necessary to avoid judicial review being rendered fruitless. [13]
 No State Legislative Assembly can be dissolved before the Proclamation is approved
by both the Houses of the Parliament. The president can only suspend the Assemblies
prior to Parliament’s assent.
 Allegations of serious corruption, maladministration or financial instability are not
considered as valid grounds for imposing President’s Rule. The court made it clear
that there should be a breakdown of ‘constitutional machinery’ in the States and not
mere ‘administrative machinery’.
 The State Governments will be given warnings and opportunities to rectify itself
 If Ministry of a State resigns, loses majority, or is dismissed, the Governor must
always undertake measures for the formation of an alternative Government before
intimating the President to use his powers under Article 356(1).

12
INDIA CONST. art. 74, cl. 2.
13
Hon’ble Justice Sawant J. & Justice Kuldip Singh, S.R Bommai v Union of India (Mar. 11, 1994),
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60799/
  Power available under Article 356 is an exceptional power and should only be used
in case of exigencies or ‘situation of impasse’. [14]

Thus prior to the pronouncement of this judgement, it was rather difficult to assess the
judiciary’s stand on the rampant misuse of Article 356 that attacked Indian federalism. It seemed
as though the impugned Article was being used for every other purpose than it’s real one. After
this pronouncement, Article356 seems to have taken the right path and this judgement creates a
new metamorphism of the Centre-State relationship. [15] Its impact on the Constitution has
toughened the federal structure of India as it laid down specific principles, guidelines and norms
for using the power available under Article 356 by the Union government against the States. This
landmark judgement kept a check on the Union government and restrained it from imposing
President’s rule on unsustainable and irrational grounds. By doing so, the Supreme Court gave
that meaning to the Article that was foresighted by the framers of the Constitution of India.

The recommendations put forward by the Sarkaria Commission [16] were also endorsed such as
approval by both the houses before dissolution of state assemblies, imposition of President’s rule
only when no other alternative exists, floor test to prove majority in case of any discrepancy etc.
Unduly dismissal of State governments was therefore seen as violative of federalism, a part of
the basic structure doctrine of the Constituion of India. The judgement changed most if not all,
malpractices that were hitherto satisfying the Centre’s greed for political gains.

14
Ibid
15
Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, An Analysis of Pre and Post S.R. Bommai Scenario with Reference to President's
Rule in States, 6 IJHSSI 5, 8 (2017)
16
Supra no. 8
 CHAPTER 03

POST S.R BOMMAI SCENARIO

The Supreme Court’s judgement is binding on all the courts in the Indian subcontinent, meaning
no lower court has the authority to go against a Supreme Court’s decision in any of the cases that
come before it. Thus developments post the Bommai judgement are evident from the various
cases that cited S.R Bommai and upheld the directions issued by the Supreme Court.

 Jagdambika Pal v. Union of India

The first instance came right three years after the pronouncement of S.R Bommai in the state
of Uttar Pradesh. Due to political games being played by several parties, the then Chief
Minister, Kalyan Singh was made to stand in a position of uncertainty concerning if he still
enjoyed majority in the Assembly. He had to prove his majority on 21st October 1997 by way
of the confidence motion agenda and the voting had to be done through Lobby Division.
On the day, when proceedings of the House were opened by the Speaker nearly all of the
opposition was at the well of the House and unparalleled violence took over the House. After
resolving the aggression of the ministers the Speaker announced that 222 members voted in
favor of the motion and none voted against it; as a result of which the no confidence motion
was declared as passed and the house was adjourned sine die. The Governor took advantage
of the existing situation and sent a report to the President stating that due to unprecedented
violence and the process of free and fair elections was being hampered, it is advisable to
impose President’s rule in Uttar Pradesh. The then President approved of such report and
exercised his powers under Article 356(1). However, for the first time in Indian history,
when the Proclamation came in front of the cabinet for consideration, it refused the
President’s proposal to invoke President’s Rule in Uttar Pradesh stating that violence in the
House cannot be equated to a breakdown of constitutional machinery. In the meantime
 though, the Governor had already dismissed Kalyan Singh from holding office and appointed
Jagdambika Pal as the Chief Minister, who filed a petition in the Allahabad High Court
against Kalyan Singh. The High Court dismissed his petition and declared Kalyan Singh’s
dismissal as unconstitutional. Pal appealed in the Supreme Court that heard the case of
Jagdambika Pal v. Union of India & ors [ 17]. The apex court directed for a floor test to be
held between the two probable CMs and on the designated day Kalyan Singh emerged
victorious. Thus this case gave guidelines for election of a CM by the Governor apart from
being the first case that recognized the necessity of ratification of the Proclamation by the
Parliament, as was stated in S.R Bommai v. Union of India.

 Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India [18]

This case is regarding the Bihar Legislative Assembly Elections of 2005 and is one of its kind.
Bihar assembly had a total number of 243 seats and for assuming majority, a party needed to
secure at least 122 of those seats. After the elections however, no party was seen to secure the
minimum qualifying seats to form a government. Moreover, none of the parties agreed to form a
coalition too. The legislators then starting defecting from their respective parties and some
ministers were even bidding to make certain other ministers a part of their own party. Seeing
such unethical situations prevail, the Governor sent a report to the President informing him of the
situation of the State of Bihar and the presence of horse trading in the House. On account of this
Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam, the then President of India imposed President’s Rule in Bihar on 23rd
May 2005, even before the Assembly had its first meeting. The political uprising that followed
saw several writ petitions being filed in the Supreme Court of India.[19] The legislators of the
state contented that since the Assembly hadn’t officially met even a single time, it wasn’t

17
JT 1998 (4) SC 319
18
Writ Petition (Civil) 257 of 2005
19
INDIA CONST. art. 32, cl. 2.
20
Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, An Analysis of Pre and Post S.R. Bommai Scenario with Reference to President's
Rule in States, 6 IJHSSI 5, 11 (2017)
functional and a non-functional Assembly cannot be dissolved. The Supreme Court too declared
the dissolution of Bihar’s Assembly unconstitutional by a majority of 3:2. It was held that if the
court is of the opinion that a particular action of Governor has been performed with an incorrect
intention and directly endangers the sanctity of the Constitution of India, then the court has the
right to examine such an act and check its Constitutionality and legality.[20]

 Union of India v. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat & Anr [21]

This is the most recent development with regards to Article 356 in India. The last instance of
imposition of President’s Rule was seen in 2016 in Uttrakhand where members of the ruling
party were demanding to vote on an appropriation bill. The presiding officer of the house
however refused such demands and went on to pass the bill with voice majority. Furthermore, he
even disqualified 9MLAs of the ruling party. Seeing this, the Governor gave time to the ruling
party to prove majority on the floor but before that could happen the Centre received a compact
disc containing a video of the Chief Minister offering bribe to certain ministers. On the basis of
this information, President’s Rule was imposed in Uttrakhand. The centre contented that their
reasons for invoking President’s rule were logical based on the failure to pass appropriation bill,
unconstitutional dismissal of legislators from the ruling party, sting operation showing Rawat
indulging in horse trading etc., which made it necessary for the centre to assume functions of the
State. The Supreme Court simply ordered for a floor test and subsequently placed Harish Rawat
led Congress government back in the House, thereby prompting the central government to
revoke the Proclamation issued following Rawat’s victory in the floor test.

We thus see how the cases decided post the SR Bommai judgement applied the guidelines issued
in the case. How in Jagdambika Pal v Union of India, Parliamentary ratification of the resolution
containing President’s rule became sine qua non as stated in Bommai’s judgement and how in
Union of India v Harish Rawat the court exercised its power to restore status quo ante for the

21
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 11567, 7915, 7916 of 2016 in Writ Petition No. 795 of 2016
first time.
Following the momentous Bommai Judgment, the autonomy of the States has been fortified and
their value as a part of the federation has gone up considerably. Furthermore, after an analysis of
Supreme Court’s judgments in various cases after 1994, it is clear that the highest court of the
country holds the belief that since both the Union and State Governments is elected by a system
of direct voting done by the public, both governments, in every aspect of autonomy, are
equivalent in nature. By virtue of the pronouncement in the Bommai case, the Supreme Court
curbed the further political misuse of Article 356 in general circumstances. In a federation, the
States are not subsidiary units of the Central government and if they were to be, it would go
against the spirit of ‘co-operative federalism’. Co-operative federalism is the only way through
which a nation can safeguard the balance between the Union and the States to promote the
welfare of the people and to do away with the need of supremacy or superiority. Under Indian
Constitutional system no single organ or entity of the political system can claim dominance over
the others. A democratic set up like India’s demands the desire of the people expressed in
elections to choose their representatives has to respected, thus unduly dismissal of elected
ministers goes against the spirit of democracy. Any misuse or abuse of the power by the central
government will damage the fabric of federalism. This notion is visible from the fact that the
Judiciary of India has favored the preservation of the federal system and declared that it is the
basic structure of the Indian Constitution.[22]

22
Hon’ble Justice Jeevan Reddy. ‘Democracy and federalism are the essential features of our Constitution and are
part of its basic structure. Any interpretation that we may place on Article 356 must, therefore help to preserve
and not subvert their fabric.’ S.R Bommai v. Union of India (Mar. 11, 1994), https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60799/
 CHAPTER 04

CONCLUSION

Any Proclamation issued under the exercise of powers under Article 356(1) gets a head start
after the Governor’s report from that respective state. An analysis of all the cases pertaining to
imposition of President’s rules in this paper saw how it is the Governor who provokes or
intimates the President upon his own satisfaction that is based on irrelevant grounds or for
fulfillment of mala fide intentions. If we study the position of the Governor from 1950-1994, it
will be found that in most cases, from the very start the character of his office is controversial
and that creates great concerns and dissatisfaction in the minds of the ministers of the States.
Although appointed by the central government, the Governor is the executive head of the State
and owes his allegiance to his own state. It is saddening to however see that more often than
never, the Governor tries to act as an agent of the Centre and his decisions are biased and unfair
towards the states he represents. Therefore, a check on the conduct and intentions of the
Governors of the various states also forms an important part of the process of strengthening the
Union – State relations.

The Sarkaria Commission’s recommendations appropriately devised ways to curb misuse of

power by the centre but those recommendations were nothing but screams in the void until the
Supreme Court gave them a voice by endorsing them in the jugdement of S.R Bommai. The 9
judge bench transformed the recommendations into legally binding norms and guidelines that
maintained the federal character of the country. The jugdement in 1994’s most historic case thus
acted as a catalyst in strengthening the federal structure of the country and its guidelines gave
broad dimension to Article 356 serving its very purpose in later cases.[23] Various legal
luminaries and jurists confined in the Bommai judgement and were of the same opinion of
imposition of President’s Rule to be suitable only in the ‘rarest of rare cases’.

The examples of Uttar Pradesh legislative case, Bihar legislative assembly case and Uttrakhand
legislative case depict how despite the pronouncement by the Supreme Court, the Centre still
misuses its powers and uses it as a political threat against the states. However, the increased
scope of judicial review can never let President’s Rule be invoked in a state based on irrational
or incoherent grounds. So even after occurrences of instances of abuse of power under Article
356 post the verdict in S.R Bommai v. Union of India, the judiciary still played a pivotal role to
curb the uncontrolled exploitation of States by the Centre that kept leading to situations of
hostility emerging between the Union and states. An amendment to Article 356 that includes all
the directions issued by the Supreme Court should be made to the Constitution of India, in order
to completely avoid chances of the destruction of the Indian co-operative federalism.

23
Dr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, An Analysis of Pre and Post S.R. Bommai Scenario with Reference to President's
Rule in States, 6 IJHSSI 5, 13 (2017)