S R Bommai and Ors v Union of India and Ors S R Bommai and Ors v Union of India and Ors

 

Submitted by Glory Roomon (4th year, KU)

 

S R Bommai and Ors v Union of India and Ors [1994] 2 SCR 644

 

Court: The Supreme Court of India

 

Decision passed by The Supreme Court  on : 11 March, 1994

 

BENCH:

 

Hon’ble Justice Kuldip Singh

Hon’ble Justice P.B. Sawant

Hon’ble Justice Katikithala Ramaswamy

Hon’ble Justice S.C. Agrawal

Hon’ble Justice Yogeshwar Dayal

Hon’ble Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy

Hon’ble Justice S.R. Pandian

Hon’ble Justice A.M. Ahmadi

Hon’ble Justice J.S. Verma

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX

 

 

S.no	Topic	Pg.no.
1.	Fact of the case	1
2.	Issues of the case	1
3.	Contention	2
4.	Rationale	2-3
5.	Defects of law	3
6.	Inference	4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 

S.R. Bommai was the 11th Chief Minister of the state of Karnataka. His party Janata Dal Government in Karnataka had the majority. His government in Karnataka was dismissed by President's Rule on April 21, 1989 under Article 356. It was asserted by The Governor of Karnataka, P. Venkatasubaiah, that the President's rule should be imposed because the ruling party had lost confidence in the House and that there were disagreements in the then ruling party leading to chaotic situations in the state. Subsequently, S.R.Bommai moved to the High court to file a writ against the arbitrary imposition of Article 356 as he was not given the opportunity to prove his majority in the legislature. Article 356 is an article provided in the Constitution that enables the president to impose a President's rule in any state if the state government is unable to keep the peace in place and according to the legislation. He then moved to the Supreme Court to file a writ to challenge the ambit and constitutionality of President's Rule after the writ filed in High Court was dismissed. This is a lengthy discussion on the matter of emergency imposed by president and the posts given to the President and the Union Ministers. 

 

 

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

 

Whether the President's Rule is an absolute power and can this power be imposed by the President on a sole decision basis.

 

What are the grounds when a President's Rule can be imposed.

 

Whether the President's rule could be challenged.

 

What is the ambit of Judicial review in a situation about government orders.

 

What are the limitations of Article 356.

 

 

 

 

The law in issue :

 

Article 356 is the provision given to the President  to issue a state emergency in case there has been unrest in the state and the functioning of the state government is not according to the Constitutional provisions. The President issues an order called President's rule upon the state with recommendation from the governor of the respective state. This President's rule can be imposed only for six months at a stretch and then for every extension of one month would be imposed by the president only after consulting the members of the council.

 

 

 

CONTENTIONS :

 

PETITIONER'S ARGUMENTS

 

That the president’s rule in the states imposed on the state was mala fide, and influenced by political decisions to take over the government of the state of Karnataka.

 

To not trust the Governor on his oral basis and provide a chance to the petitioner to prove his majority in the House while citing judicial pronouncements.

 

To Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the president's rule to be unconstitutional and arbitrary as the governor had acted in haste and missed out on important points.

 

To reconsider the president's rule on the grounds of equality and justice.

 

 

RESPONDENT'S ARGUMENTS:

 

That when a report is put forward by the Governor it could not be challenged.

 

That article 361 protects the governor from any legal action against them.

 

 The President's rule and the proclamation imposed cannot be sued because the president has taken the recommendation of the council of ministers.

 

That the proclamation was legitimate and cannot be changed nor sued.

 

That issuing a proclamation is a political decision which cannot be judicially challenged.

 

 

 

RATIONALE: :

 

The Supreme Court turned down the judgment laid down by the High court of Karnataka. This landmark judgment laid down the basic structure doctrine and the ambit of the judicial review while curbing blatant misuses of the executive powers by the 9-judge constitution bench. It also discouraged the misuse of the power vested in Article 356, i.e. the President's Rule and the Union cabinet's decision under Article 74(2), 163, 355, 356, 357. The powers vested to the President in Article 356 are not absolute and must be used with caution and voting from both the House of the Parliament. Clause (3) of Article 356 lays down the limitations of the President's rule. It must be approved by the Parliament before any decision is taken. Article 356 should be used only when there is a military discrepancy and dispute , of which the state government is incapable to handle.  But in this scenario there was no situation of that sort. Article 356(1) legally and constitutionally makes the proclamation issued subject to judicial review, overrule the issued proclamation and also bring situations to as it was before the proclamation. The court took assistance from the reports of the Sarkaria Commission and consulted them to provide the judgment if the absolute power given to the President under Article 356 is proper or improper.

 

This judgment also said that even though the state exists under the power and authority of the Centre, the state as a whole would hold independent powers to mitigate their issues. That the direction under section 356 would be subjected to judicial review by the Honourable Supreme Court with an in detail investigation on the reasons about the imposition of President's Rule.  The suspended legislative assembly in the state was also brought to normal state. Thus this judgment ended abrupt dismissal of the government by using constitutional articles meant to impart justice. That hung assembly can be applied only when there is no majority of any party in the election but in this scenario there was a majority party capable of forming a government. Article 356 does not expressly address the dissolution of the legislature such powers are employed in article 356 (1)(a), articles 174 (2)(b) allowed the government to the legislative assembly and the president under article 356 (1)(a) delegate the powers and duty to both the government and governors.

 

In an additional view, justice Hidayatullah observed that the circumstances should have a prima facie intent to defraud, a fraudulent or unlawful purpose, fraud or misconduct or the withholding of information of a particular kind to file a suit against any absolute inherent powers of president. The Government could file a writ in the High Court or the Supreme Court if the grounds for imposing President's rule is malafide and not following the legality of the proclamation and could also halt or dismiss the decision of the Legislative assembly if the decision is dubious. The judgement presumed that the power of the president is not absolute but an accustomed power and the presidential proclamation is not excused from the judicial analysis.

 

Defects of law:

 

Before this judgment the basic principles of constitution were  not laid down , also known as the basic structure doctrine. This created a hindrance and uncertainty in the challenging of a government order, and the absoluteness of the government’s orders like President's rule. As article 356 has not clearly mentioned the absoluteness of the President's rule, it had created ambiguity amongst the public and subsequently has given the central government an unfair advantage over the state government to disperse their government without any warning. The amendment in Article 356 is required to lessen the blatant misuse of arbitrary orders of President's Rule imposed. Moreover article 72(2) of the constitution hinders judicial inquiry into a government decision unless the central governments disclose the dispute themselves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Inference:

 

This judgment lays down the ambit of Judicial review and provides more power to the judicial system to prevent situations like this where the government makes rules and decisions based on haste and personal bias and discourages the political misuse of Article 356. It also helps describe the relation between state and centre in a clear way.  It helped lay down the checks and balances between the state and centre. That the Constitution is a federal document and federalism and secularism are one of the basic structure doctrine. The constitution of India has several characteristics that are essential to it being the supreme document of India which must not be disrespected by the legislature. This judgment became a Landmark decision whenever the issue of conflict is hung assembly.