S.R.

Bommai vs Union of India (Case Study)

Citation: 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1 1 .
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3645 of 1989 2 .
Parties: Petitioner – S.R. Bommai; Respondent – Union of India 3 .
Hon’ble Bench: Chief Justice Kuldip Singh; Justices P.B. Sawant, K. Ramaswamy, S.C. Agrawal, Yogeshwar
Dayal, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, S.R. Pandian and A.M. Ahmadi 4 (nine-judge bench).
Date of Judgment: 11 March 1994 5 6 .

Facts of the Case

S.R. Bommai was Chief Minister of Karnataka leading a Janata Dal government. In April 1989, defections
triggered a political crisis. On 17–19 April 1989, 19 legislators (mostly Janata Dal) sent letters to the
Governor withdrawing support 7 . The Governor verified the letters’ authenticity and reported to the
President that Bommai “did not command a majority” 8 . He recommended invoking Article 356 to dismiss
the government. Bommai offered to prove his majority on the Assembly floor (per the Sarkaria
Commission’s advice), and 7 of the 19 legislators then retracted their resignations to support him 9 .
However, on 21 April 1989 the President issued a proclamation dissolving the Karnataka Assembly and
imposing President’s Rule 10 . Parliament approved the proclamation under Article 356(3), and Bommai
challenged it by writ petition in the Karnataka High Court. The High Court (three-judge bench) upheld the
President’s Rule, rejecting Bommai’s plea 11 . Bommai then appealed to the Supreme Court, which
consolidated cases from Karnataka and other states similarly dismissed under Article 356.

Issues Raised
• Existence of Material: Whether there was “relevant material” justifying the President’s satisfaction
that the state government had broken constitutional machinery 12 .
• Presidential Power: Whether the President (on Council of Ministers’ advice) has unfettered
discretion under Article 356(1) to dismiss a state government 13 .
• Judicial Review: Whether proclamations under Article 356 are subject to judicial review and, if so, on
what grounds 14 .
• Secularism: Whether state governments can be dismissed for alleged violations of secularism, given
secularism is part of the Constitution’s basic structure 15 .

Petitioner’s Arguments
Bommai (appellants) argued that the Governor acted arbitrarily and violated constitutional norms. He
contended the Governor denied him a floor-test opportunity despite the defectors’ recantation, relying
instead on disputed defect lists 16 . He maintained that the Governor’s report was based on unverified,
politically motivated information and thus lacked objective basis 16 . The petitioners further argued that
the imposition of President’s Rule was maliciously driven to weaken an opposition-led state government,
undermining federalism 16 . In summary, Bommai claimed the dismissal was unjustified because he still
commanded majority support if properly tested on the Assembly floor 16 .

1
Respondent’s Arguments
The Union of India (respondents) defended the proclamation as constitutionally valid. The Government
contended that the President’s satisfaction under Article 356(1) is subjective and not open to judicial
second-guessing 17 . It argued that the Governor had sufficient grounds (the alleged defections and
dissensions) to report a breakdown of constitutional machinery. The Union also pointed to allegations that
the Bommai ministry engaged in communal or non-secular activities, arguing that such conduct could
justify dismissal under Article 356 17 . Finally, the respondents asserted that courts should not probe the
adequacy of the material or advice behind the President’s Rule decision 17 .

Judgment of the Court

The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment laying down strict limits on the use of Article 356. A 9-
judge bench unanimously held that all proclamations under Article 356 are subject to judicial review
18 . The Court formulated three key questions for review: whether there was any material justifying the

proclamation, whether that material was relevant to the situation, and whether the proclamation was
issued with mala fide intent 18 . The Court emphasized that it need not examine the adequacy of material
(i.e., judges need not weigh it on merits), but it could invalidate proclamations for illegality, mala fides or
irrelevant considerations.

The Court ruled that the majority in the State assembly must be tested on the floor, not on subjective
reports 19 . It declared that a Governor cannot deny the Chief Minister a chance to prove majority; doing so
violates constitutional principles 19 . Consequently, decisions based solely on the Governor’s “subjective
opinion” (as in Bommai’s case) are unconstitutional.

The judgment also curtailed presidential power under Article 356. It held that a proclamation’s dissolution
of the assembly is irreversible and hence must await Parliament’s approval 20 . Until parliamentary
approval, the President can only keep the assembly in suspension (not dissolve it) 20 . Notably, the Court
affirmed secularism as a fundamental feature. It observed that if a state government openly violates
secularism, Article 356 may be validly invoked to uphold the Constitution’s secular character 21 .

In sum, the Court laid down guidelines to invoke Article 356 sparingly: only in genuine constitutional
breakdowns, after exploring all alternatives (including inviting other parties to form government), and with
the possibility of judicial review 22 . Thus, the proclamation against Bommai’s government was held to be
illegal for want of floor-test opportunity and adequate objective material.

Critical Analysis (Conclusion)

S.R. Bommai vs Union of India is widely regarded as a cornerstone of Indian constitutional law that
dramatically curtailed the arbitrary use of Article 356 23 . The judgment enshrined the principle that
President’s Rule is an exceptional measure, not a political tool. By requiring floor tests to prove majority, the
Court ensured that legislative assemblies, not Governors’ subjective reports, decide a government’s
fate 24 23 . Its insistence on judicial review of all emergency proclamations and on parliamentary approval
before dissolution fundamentally reinforced federalism and parliamentary democracy 24 23 . The Court’s
recognition of secularism as part of the basic structure added a safeguard: state governments breaching
core constitutional values risk dismissal 21 .

2
The Bommai guidelines have had a lasting impact. Proclamations under Article 356 must now clear multiple
checks (objectivity, floor test, parliamentary sanction) before dissolving a state government. Future courts
have repeatedly cited Bommai in hung assembly cases and emergency challenges, reflecting its role in
safeguarding constitutional governance 25 23 . In conclusion, the Supreme Court in Bommai preserved the
balance of Centre–State relations by ensuring that extraordinary powers like President’s Rule are used
judiciously and sparingly, in strict conformity with constitutional principles 26 25 .

References: Content from INFORMATION.PDF 1 7 10 11 ; analyses from LawBhoomi 12 16 27 18 19

20 21 22 23 , Lawctopus 28 24 25 , and iPleaders 29 30 .

1 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 INFORMATION.PDF
file://file-LKa4ZBKV9EUQS3XauGKdzr

2 6 Digital Supreme Court Reports

https://digiscr.sci.gov.in/view_judgment?id=MjUyMzg=

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 26 27 S.R. Bommai v Union of India and Others

https://lawbhoomi.com/s-r-bommai-v-union-of-india-and-others/

24 25 28 Case Analysis of S. R. Bommai v. Union of India: Landmark Case on Misuse of Article 356
https://www.lawctopus.com/clatalogue/clat-ug/case-analysis-of-s-r-bommai-v-union-of-india-landmark-case-on-misuse-of-
article-356/

29 30 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India : case analysis

https://blog.ipleaders.in/s-r-bommai-v-union-of-india-power-of-presidents-rule-curtailed/