Introduction and Context

The landmark judgment in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India[1] represents a big moment in the Indian jurisprudence, drastically redesigning the relationship between the Union and the States. This verdict was delivered by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court and also addressed one of the most controversial provisions in the Constitution, Article 356, which allows the President to impose President's Rule in states under certain circumstances. Before this judgment, Article 356 had been introduced in numerous occasions, thus frequently raising questions about its misuse for political purposes by those in power. The assertion that led to this case involved the discharge of state governments in states of Karnataka, Meghalaya, and Nagaland in 1989, after the fall of the National Front government at the Centre.

The significance of this case extends beyond the political context of the late 1980s to early 1990s as it supported ideas on federalism, separation of powers, and the limits of executive in India. The case came at a point when coalition politics was becoming the norm, thus making the potential for misuse of Art. 356 more definite. The Supreme Court's decision in this case also established essential safeguards against random exercise of emergency powers and also reinforced the basic structure doctrine's application to federalism. This paper examines the legal framework surrounding Article 356, analyzes the Court's reasoning, studies its impact on Indian federalism, and checks its relevance in light of recent developments.

Legal Framework: Article 356 and Constitutional Provisions

Article 356 of the Constitution allows for the use of President's Rule in states when the President, after receiving a report from the Governor, is satisfied that the governance of the state cannot be carried on in accord with the provisions of the Constitution. This special provision allows the Union government to assume all or any functions of the state government, dissolve the legislature, and govern with the help of administrators appointed by the Centre. This particular provision was borrowed from the Government of India Act, 1935, and was meant to be an emergency measure to address serious constitutional breakdowns.

The framework surrounding Article 356 involves multiple provisions working together. Article 355 imposes a duty on the Union to ensure that the government of every state is carried on in accordance with the Constitution, allowing for the constitutional foundation for central intervention.[2] Article 356 serves as the tool through which this duty can be imposed. The proclamation issued under Article 356 must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months, and can initially remain in force for six months, with extensions up to three years under exceptional circumstances as per Article 356(4) and Article 356(5).

Before the Bommai judgment, the scope and application of Article 356 remained mostly immune from scrutiny. The landmark case of State of Rajasthan v. Vidyawati [3] had held that the satisfaction of the President alone under Article 356 was not justifiable, thus essentially placing the exercise of this power beyond judicial review. This interpretation caused a situation where the provision could be used with minimal accountability, leading to its almost frequent use, often seen as a result of political motivation. Between the years of 1950 and 1994, Article 356 was invoked over 100 times, with intensive use during the 1970s and 1980s.

The constitutional debates during the framing of the Constitution show that Article 356 was imagined as an option of last resort. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, while introducing the draft Constitution, stressed that such provisions would remain a dead letter and would never be called into operation. However, the practical reality proved different, demanding judicial intervention to match constitutional practice with intent.

The S.R. Bommai Case: Facts and Issues

The facts of the case came from a period of political turbulence after the 1989 general elections. The National Front government led by V.P. Singh came to power at the Centre with support from the BJP and left parties. When this support was finally withdrawn in November 1990, the government fell, and Chandra Shekhar formed a new minority government with support of Congress. After this, on April 6, 1991, three state governments in Karnataka, Meghalaya, and Nagaland were dismissed under Article 356. In Karnataka, Chief Minister S.R. Bommai's Janata Dal government was dismissed on the ground that it had lost majority support in the legislative assembly, though no test was done to verify this claim.

The dismissed Chief Ministers challenged these assertions before the Supreme Court, raising questions about the scope, application, and justifiability of Article 356. The petitioners argued that the power under Article 356 was being misused for political purposes and that the dismissals violated the basic structure of the Constitution, especially the federal principle. They argued that the satisfaction of the President was based on irrelevant considerations, and that the failure to provide an opportunity for a floor test made the assertions extremely unconstitutional.

The core legal issues before the nine-judge bench were multi-layered and far-reaching. First issue was whether the power under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, and if so, to what extent. Second, whether the proclamation must be based on relevant material and whether such material can be examined by courts. Third, what procedural safeguards should be followed before imposing President's Rule, especially with respect to floor tests in cases of alleged loss of majority. Fourth, whether the dissolution of the state legislative assembly is automatic or requires separate consideration. Fifth, the relationship between Article 356 and the federal structure as part of the Constitution's basic structure.

Supreme Court's Landmark Ruling and Reasoning

The Supreme Court's judgment, delivered through multiple concurring opinions, deeply transformed the legal landscape surrounding Article 356. The Court held, reversing the earlier Rajasthan case, that the satisfaction of the President under Article 356 is not beyond judicial review. Justice Sawant stressed that the power under Article 356, like all powers, is subject to judicial scrutiny and must be exercised in accordance with constitutional principles and limitations.

The Court established that while the subjective satisfaction of the President is not justiciable, the grounds on which the satisfaction is based can be examined by courts. This distinction proved crucial in permitting meaningful judicial review while respecting executive rights. The Court held that the material placed before the President must be relevant and cannot be based on irrelevant considerations. If the material is found to be irrelevant, or if mala fides can be proved, the assertion can be struck down.

A major contribution of the judgment was the explanation of federalism as part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Multiple judges, including Justice Sawant, Justice Jeevan Reddy, and Justice Ramaswamy, held that the federal principle is a feature that cannot be destroyed even by amendments. This increased the status of state autonomy and made the protection of federal balance a constitutional imperative. The Court observed that Article 356 should be used cautiously and only when all alternative measures have been exhausted, as it symbolizes an intrusion deep into the federal structure.

The judgment also laid down specific guidelines for the exercise of power under Article 356. In cases where a government is dismissed on the ground of loss of majority, the Assembly must not be dissolved, and the government should be given an opportunity to prove its majority on the floor of the House. This procedural safeguard ensures that the parliamentary system's democracy is protected. The Court also held that the dissolution of the Assembly should not be automatic but rather, requires independent application of mind by the President, checking whether alternative governments can be formed.

The Court further held that proclamations issued under Article 356 are subject to review at multiple stages: before the proclamation is approved by Parliament, after parliamentary approval but before dissolution of the Assembly, and also after dissolution if the proclamation is proved to be unconstitutional. This inclusive approach to judicial review confirms continuous oversight of executive rights.

As for the cases before it, the Court upheld the proclamation in Karnataka, finding that the government had indeed lost majority support, though it criticized the dissolution of the Assembly. The proclamations in Meghalaya and Nagaland were struck down being based on insufficient material, demonstrating the Court's willingness to inspect executive action.

Critical Analysis and Practical Implications

The above judgment shows a balancing act between executive necessity and constitutional limitation and between central authority and state autonomy. Its biggest achievement lies in subjecting free executive power to important judicial oversight while also maintaining respect for legitimate executive needs. The Court also created an effective mechanism for preventing abuse without paralysing executive action in cases of genuine emergencies by making the grounds of satisfaction justiciable rather than the satisfaction itself.

The judgment's affirmation of federalism as part of the basic structure has deep implications for constitutional architecture of India as it keeps state autonomy on the same high plane as other features like democracy, secularism, and judicial independence. This recognition is important in India's quasi-federal system, where the Constitution has strong unitary features. By identifying federalism as sacred, the Court reinforced the idea that India is a Union of States and not a unitary state with multiple administrative subdivisions.

The practical impact of the case has been measurable. Statistical analysis also shows an intense decline in the call of Article 356 after the judgment. While Article 356 was used over 100 times between 1950 and 1994, its use has been more restrained in following decades. The requirement of floor tests before dismissing governments has also become an accepted constitutional system, thus protecting democratically elected governments from arbitrary removal. Several state governments that may have been dismissed in the pre-Bommai era have also been saved.

However, the implementation of Bommai has not been without its challenges and limitations. The requirement that assertions be placed before Parliament for approval still remains a political process, and parliamentary majorities can approve assertions even when judicial review may suggest otherwise. The guideline that Assemblies should not be dissolved in majority-loss cases has sometimes been honoured in the breach, with dissolutions happening before alternative governments can be explored. The political nature of Governor's reports, which form the basis for Article 356 assertions, continues to be a source of concern, as Governors are appointed by the central government and can imitate biased considerations.

The Bommai principles have also been applied and advanced in subsequent cases. In the case of Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India,[4] with regards to Bihar, the Supreme Court repeated Bommai principles and stressed the need for objective material before imposing President's Rule. The Court also held that the Governor's report must be based on objective material and cannot be founded on subjective assessments or even political considerations. More recently, in the case of Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker,[5] a five-judge bench applied Bommai principles in the context of Arunachal Pradesh and held that the Governor had acted unconstitutionally in advancing the Assembly without the Chief Minister's advice, further strengthening state autonomy against central interference.

The judgment also has implications for the broader principle of separation of powers and system of checks and balances. By asserting judicial review over executive action, the Court reinforced its role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and guardian of values, even in areas traditionally considered political questions. This assertive approach to judicial review influenced the Court's jurisprudence in other areas, including challenges to governmental decisions.

From a federal perspective, Bommai has encouraged greater assertion of state rights and resistance to central infringement. State governments are now more willing to challenge central actions in court, safe in the knowledge that the judiciary will examine such actions critically. This has led to a more balanced federalism where states are not merely administrative units but genuine partners in governance.

Recent Developments and Contemporary Relevance

The relevance of the Bommai judgment remains strong even in modern Indian politics, where coalition governments, at both Centre and state level, have become the norm rather than the exception. The political differentiation and the resulting variability in several states have raised questions about the invocation of Article 356, making Bommai's safeguards more critical than ever.

Recent years have seen several situations where Bommai principles have been tested. The political crisis in Maharashtra in 2019-2020, involving competing claims to form the government, saw the Supreme Court intervening to order a floor test, directly applying Bommai's principle. The Court's firmness on a floor test prevented potential misuse of governor’s discretion and ensured that the people's mandate was respected.

The role of Governors have also arose as a problematic issue in recent times, with allegations of biased behaviour and delays in decisions like giving assent to bills or calling Assembly sessions. While Bommai mainly addressed Article 356, its underlying principles about objective decision-making and preventing misuse of offices have been cited in challenges to governor’s actions. The tension between the Governor's constitutional role and potential political allegiances remains an area where Bommai's spirit, if not its letter, continues to guide judicial intervention.

The Sarkaria Commission (1988) and Punchhi Commission (2010) recommendations on Centre-State relations have drawn heavily on concerns that led to the Bommai judgment. These commissions have recommended further safeguards against misuse of Article 356, including mandatory consultation with the Chief Minister before dismissal, placing all relevant material before Parliament, and ensuring that the Governor acts independently of central political influence. While not all recommendations have been implemented, they show continued engagement with the issues raised in Bommai.

The judgment's principles have also found value in constitutional discourse. Federal courts in other democratic federations struggle with similar tensions between national unity and regional autonomy, and Bommai's approach to balancing these considerations through justiciable standards has attracted academic attention internationally. The Indian experience post-Bommai demonstrates that judicial review can serve as an effective check on federal overreach without undermining legitimate central authority.

Conclusion and Recommendations

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India stands as a strong moment in Indian constitutional history, changing Article 356 from a provision prone to misuse into a carefully bound emergency power subject to rigorous scrutiny. By establishing that federalism is part of the Constitution's basic structure and that executive satisfaction must be based on objective, relevant material, the Court strengthened judicial review and federal principles. The judgment shows the Court's role as the guardian of constitutional values, willing to intervene when fundamental principles are threatened.

The lasting impact of Bommai is evident in the changed political and constitutional culture surrounding Centre-State relations. The reduction in Article 356 assetions, the acceptance of floor tests as standard procedure, and the greater hesitance in dissolving Assemblies all prove the judgment's practical effectiveness. While implementation challenges do exist, especially regarding Governor's discretion and approval in Parliament, the judgment has created a framework that makes arbitrary use of Article 356 more difficult and legally weak.

However, understanding the full potential of Bommai requires continued care and further reforms. The appointment of Governors should be made more transparent and independent, with inputs from state governments and clearer criteria for selection, ensuring that Governors act as statesmen rather than political agents. The recommendation that Governors' reports forming the basis of Article 356 proclamations should be placed in the public domain would increase transparency and accountability. Parliament's approval process for Article 356 proclamations should involve more rigorous scrutiny, perhaps through a committee mechanism that examines the material and its justification independently.

The Supreme Court must continue to apply Bommai principles consistently and rigorously, especially in cases involving governor’s discretion and dissolution of Assemblies. Lower and High Courts should be authorized to examine challenges to Article 356 proclamations, given the time-sensitive nature of such crises. Legislative reforms codifying Bommai principles through an amendment to Article 356 or through parliamentary rules could provide extra safeguards.

Looking forward, the strengthening of federal institutions, including the Inter-State Council and forums for Centre-State dialogue, would reduce situations of confrontation that might otherwise invite Article 356.

In conclusion, S.R. Bommai v. Union of India represents adjudication at its finest, by balancing competing values, protecting fundamental principles against majoritarian wishes, and adapting constitutional provisions to modern needs while remaining faithful to constitutional values. As India's federal democracy continues to grow, the principles established in Bommai will remain essential guideposts for maintaining the balance between national unity and regional autonomy. The judgment reminds us that constitutional provisions, even those deciding emergency powers, operate within a framework of fundamental values that courts are duty-bound to protect and preserve.

References

[1] S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1

[2] Constitution of India, Article 355

[3] State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361

[4] Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1

[5] Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, (2016) 8 SCC 1

Bibliography

Constitutional Provisions:

• Constitution of India, Article 356

• Constitution of India, Article 355

• Government of India Act, 1935

Case Law:

• S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1

• State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 1361

• Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1

• Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, (2016) 8 SCC 1

Reports and Commissions:

• Report of the Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State Relations (1988)

• Report of the Commission on Centre-State Relations (Punchhi Commission) (2010)

Books and Articles:

• M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 8th Edition, LexisNexis (2018)

• H.M. Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, Volume 3, 4th Edition, Universal Law Publishing (2009)

• D.D. Basu, Commentary on the Constitution of India, Volume 7, 9th Edition, LexisNexis (2015)

• Granville Austin, Working a Democratic Constitution: The Indian Experience, Oxford University Press (1999)

• Shubhankar Dam, "Presidential Legislation in India: The Law and Practice of Ordinances", Cambridge University Press (2014)