S.R. Bommai and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 02 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
I. Introduction
A. Brief background on the case (S.R. Bommai v. Union of India)
The case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India, dealing with the scope and limits of the President's power to dismiss a State Government under Article 356 of the Constitution. The case arose from the dismissal of several State Governments by the Union Government in 1989 and 1992, including the Governments of Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan.
The petitioners, including S.R. Bommai, the former Chief Minister of Karnataka, challenged the validity of the Presidential Proclamations issued under Article 356, which led to the dismissal of their respective State Governments and the imposition of President's Rule.
B. Importance of the case in the context of Indian federalism and Centre-State relations
The case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India is of immense significance in the context of Indian federalism and Centre-State relations. It addresses the delicate balance of power between the Union and the States, and the circumstances under which the Union can intervene in the affairs of a State.
The case highlights the importance of preserving the federal structure of the Constitution, which is a basic feature of the Indian polity. It emphasizes the need to maintain the autonomy and independence of the States within their respective spheres, while also recognizing the Union's responsibility to ensure that the State Governments function in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
The judgment in this case has far-reaching implications for the interpretation and application of Article 356, which has been a contentious issue in Centre-State relations. It seeks to strike a balance between the Union's power to intervene in exceptional circumstances and the need to protect the democratic principles and federal structure enshrined in the Constitution.
Overall, the case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India is a landmark decision that has shaped the understanding of Indian federalism and the dynamics of Centre-State relations, providing guidance on the appropriate use of the President's power under Article 356 and the principles of judicial review in such matters.
II. Understanding Article 356 of the Indian Constitution
A. Provisions of Article 356
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution deals with the failure of constitutional machinery in a state. It empowers the President to issue a proclamation, if satisfied that a situation has arisen where the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Upon issuing such a proclamation, the President can assume to himself all or any of the functions of the state government and all or any of the powers vested in the Governor. The President can also declare that the powers of the state legislature shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament.
The key provisions of Article 356 are:
1. The President can issue a proclamation on receipt of a report from the Governor of the state or based on other information available to him.
2. The proclamation must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months. If approved, the proclamation can remain in force for six months. It can be extended further by six months at a time, but not beyond three years.
3. The President can make incidental and consequential provisions as appear necessary to give effect to the proclamation, including suspending the operation of any provision of the Constitution relating to any body or authority in the state.
4. The President cannot assume to himself any of the powers vested in the High Court or suspend the provisions relating to High Courts.
B. Historical context and the intent behind Article 356
The provisions related to the failure of constitutional machinery in states have their origins in the Government of India Act, 1935. Sections 93 and 45 of this Act allowed the Governor-General and Governors to take over the administration of provinces if they were satisfied that the governance could not be carried on in accordance with the Act.
During the framing of the Indian Constitution, the Constituent Assembly debated the need for such a provision. The intent was to ensure that the Union could intervene in case of a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in a state, as a measure to protect and preserve the Constitution. However, it was also recognized that this power should be used sparingly and as a last resort.
C. Debates in the Constituent Assembly on Article 356
The draft Articles 277-A and 278 (corresponding to the present Articles 355 and 356) were discussed in the Constituent Assembly on August 3, 1949. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, explained the rationale behind these provisions:
"It is agreed that our Constitution, notwithstanding the many provisions which are contained in it, whereby the Centre has been given powers to override the Provinces, none-the-less is a Federal Constitution and when we say that Constitution is a Federal Constitution, it means this, that the provinces are as sovereign in their field which is left to them by the Constitution as the Centre is in the field which is assigned to it."
He further stated that the intervention of the Centre should not be seen as a "wanton invasion" but as an obligation imposed by the Constitution to maintain it in the states. The hope was that these provisions would remain a "dead letter" and would be used only in exceptional circumstances.
During the debates, some members expressed concerns about the potential misuse of this power. Dr. Ambedkar acknowledged these concerns and stated that the President would issue a clear warning to the errant state before taking action under this Article. He also mentioned that the President could order fresh elections, allowing the people to settle matters, before resorting to the use of this Article.
The debates in the Constituent Assembly highlight the delicate balance that the framers sought to achieve between preserving the federal structure and ensuring the maintenance of the Constitution in the states. While recognizing the need for such a provision, they hoped it would be used sparingly and as a measure of last resort.
III. Scope and Limitations of Judicial Review of Article 356
A. Divergent views among the judges
The judges on the constitutional bench expressed divergent views regarding the scope and limitations of judicial review of the President's proclamation under Article 356. Some key viewpoints are as follows:
• Chief Justice Beg held that the Court cannot question the President's satisfaction due to Articles 365(5) and 74(2). The Court can only decide based on facts admitted or placed by the President. However, the Court can interfere if the power is used in a grossly perverse or unreasonable manner, or for an extraneous purpose.
• Justice Chandrachud opined that judicial scrutiny is available to see if the reasons bear a rational nexus with the proposed action. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the President's satisfaction or consider if another view is possible.
• Justice Bhagwati held that the Court cannot probe deeper into the reasons beyond what is disclosed. The Court cannot inquire if there were other reasons. • Justice Gupta stated that the Court's scrutiny is limited to examining if the exercise of power is mala fide, based on extraneous grounds, or if there is no satisfaction at all.
• Justice Fazal Ali emphasized that the Court lacks resources to assess political needs, feelings, or aspirations that may necessitate a particular action.
B. Justiciability and the 'political question' doctrine
The Court grappled with the issue of justiciability, i.e., whether the President's satisfaction under Article 356 is amenable to judicial review or falls under the 'political question' doctrine, which restricts judicial intervention in certain political matters.
Some key observations:
• The expression 'or otherwise' in Article 356 indicates a wide range of materials, including imponderables and inferences, which may be considered by the President. Such subjective satisfaction lacks judicially manageable standards, making the controversy nonjusticiable.
• Only cases permitting objective standards for determining the failure of constitutional machinery are justiciable. The remaining cases involving significant subjective satisfaction are subject to political scrutiny and correction.
• The Court cannot interdict the President's power under Article 356 unless it is shown to be mala fide. Sufficient caution must be exercised, and a strong prima facie case must be made before calling upon the executive to answer.
C. Separation of powers and the role of the judiciary
The Court acknowledged the delicate balance between the separation of powers and the judiciary's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Some key points:
• The Court has a constitutional duty to uphold constitutional values, enforce limitations, and determine the extent of powers conferred on each branch of government.
• Judicial review extends to examining the constitutionality of the President's proclamation under Article 356, albeit with circumspection and care.
• There cannot be fixed rules or principles for determining the justiciability of the President's satisfaction. Justiciability depends on various factors, including the nature of the controversy and the availability of judicially manageable standards.
• The Court must exercise judicial self-restraint in matters involving political wisdom and subjective assessments, while ensuring that constitutional boundaries are not transgressed.
In essence, the Court recognized the need to balance judicial review with respect for the separation of powers and the political nature of certain decisions, while upholding its duty to safeguard constitutional values and limitations.
IV. Key Observations and Findings of the Judgment
A. Formation of the President's satisfaction
The President's satisfaction for issuing a proclamation under Article 356(1) is subjective in nature. However, it must be based on relevant objective material, which may include the Governor's report or other information available to the President. The existence of such relevant material is a pre-condition for the formation of the President's satisfaction. The court cannot question the adequacy or correctness of the material, but it can examine whether any relevant material existed at all.
B. Relevance of the Governor's report
The Governor's report is not conclusive, but its relevance is undeniable. Action under Article 356 can be based only and exclusively upon such a report. If the Governor's report is vitiated by legal malafides, it is bound to vitiate the President's action as well. The Governor, being a high constitutional functionary, is expected to act fairly and honestly consistent with their oath.
C. Scope of the word 'otherwise' in Article 356(1)
The word 'otherwise' in Article 356(1) enlarges the scope of the material that the President can consider for forming their satisfaction. It allows the President to rely on information from sources other than the Governor's report. However, such information must still be relevant to the situation contemplated by Article 356(1).
D. Applicability of the principles of natural justice
Since the President's satisfaction is subjective in nature, the principles of natural justice (such as the right to be heard) do not apply to the process of forming this satisfaction. The nature of the power and the situation in which it is exercised preclude the application of such principles.
E. Grounds for judicial intervention (mala fide, extraneous grounds, etc.)
The court can intervene and strike down a proclamation under Article 356(1) if it is found to be mala fide or based wholly on extraneous and/or irrelevant grounds. The ground of mala fides includes situations where the proclamation is found to be a clear case of abuse of power or fraud on power, where the power is invoked for achieving oblique ends. However, the court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the President or question the correctness or adequacy of the material.
F. Role of Parliament in approving the Proclamation The approval of the proclamation by both Houses of Parliament under Article 356(3) is a check on the power of the President under Article 356(1). However, this check has not proved to be as effective in practice as it ought to have been. The court can still examine the validity of the proclamation even after it has been approved by Parliament, as the approval does not validate an invalid proclamation. The grounds for challenging the validity of the proclamation may be different from those challenging the validity of legislation.
V. Implications and Impact of the Judgment
A. Clarification on the extent of judicial review
The Supreme Court has clarified the extent to which judicial review can be exercised over the President's decision to invoke Article 356 and impose President's Rule in a state. The key points are:
1. The satisfaction of the President under Article 356(1) is not immune from judicial review, though the parameters may vary from an ordinary case of subjective satisfaction.
2. The court cannot question the correctness or adequacy of the material based on which the President formed the satisfaction. However, if the proclamation is found to be malafide, based wholly on extraneous or irrelevant grounds, or a case of abuse of power, it can be struck down.
3. The deletion of the earlier clause 5 of Article 356, which barred judicial review, has reinforced the position that the President's satisfaction is judicially reviewable.
4. The court cannot call upon the Union government to produce the material/information on the basis of which the President formed the satisfaction, unless the petitioner establishes a prima facie case. If called upon, the Union government must disclose the relevant material.
5. The Union government may claim privilege under Section 123 of the Evidence Act over certain materials, which the court will then decide upon as per law.
B. Safeguards against the misuse of Article 356
The judgment has laid down certain safeguards and guidelines to prevent the misuse of Article 356:
1. The power under Article 356 should be used sparingly, as a measure of last resort, when all alternatives have failed to prevent or rectify a breakdown of the constitutional machinery in the state.
2. The state Legislative Assembly should not be dissolved before the proclamation under Article 356(1) has been approved by Parliament.
3. Provisions similar to clauses 7 and 8 of Article 352 (related to emergency provisions) should be incorporated in Article 356 to enable Parliamentary review of the continuance of the proclamation.
4. The material facts and grounds for invoking Article 356(1) should be made an integral part of the proclamation, to enable better Parliamentary control and judicial review.
5. The Governor's report, based on which the proclamation is issued, should be a "speaking document" containing precise facts and grounds, and should be given wide publicity.
C. Impact on the federal structure and CentreState relations
The judgment has significant implications for the federal structure and Centre-State relations in India:
1. It reaffirms that States are not mere administrative units but have an independent constitutional existence and an important role to play in the political, social, and cultural life of the people.
2. While acknowledging the bias towards a strong Centre in the Constitution, the Court has emphasized that within the sphere allotted to them, States are supreme, and their powers cannot be tampered with or whittled down through interpretation.
3. The frequent use of Article 356 and the dismissal of State governments are likely to disturb the constitutional balance and the delicate federal structure envisaged by the Constitution.
4. The Court has cautioned against the use of Article 356 for achieving partisan political objectives or as a weapon against oppositionruled State governments, as it would damage the fabric of the Constitution.
5. The judgment seeks to maintain the federal balance by subjecting the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 356 to judicial review and Parliamentary control, while recognizing the overall primacy of the Centre in certain matters.
In essence, the judgment aims to strike a balance between preserving the federal autonomy of States and upholding the constitutional scheme of a strong Centre, by providing checks and safeguards against the potential misuse of Article 356.
VI. Critical Analysis and Concluding Remarks
A. Strengths and weaknesses of the judgment
The judgment in the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India case is a landmark decision that has significantly impacted the interpretation and application of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. One of the key strengths of the judgment is its recognition of the importance of judicial review in upholding the constitutional values and limitations. The Court affirmed that the President's satisfaction under Article 356(1) is not immune from judicial scrutiny, and the Court has the constitutional obligation to determine whether the exercise of power under this Article has transgressed the prescribed limits.
Another strength of the judgment is its emphasis on the secular nature of the Indian Constitution and the need for political parties and governments to adhere to the principles of secularism. The Court recognized that non-secular policies, programs, and actions of political parties could render their governments amenable to action under Article 356.
However, the judgment also has certain weaknesses and areas of ambiguity. One of the primary weaknesses is the lack of clear and precise guidelines or standards for determining the justiciability of the President's satisfaction under Article 356(1). While the Court acknowledged that the scope of judicial review may vary depending on the subject matter and nature of the case, it did not provide a definitive framework for assessing the justiciability of such cases.
Additionally, the judgment left some issues unresolved, such as the extent to which the Court can scrutinize the material or evidence upon which the President's satisfaction is based. The Court's stance on the applicability of Article 74(2) and the protection it affords to the advice tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President remains somewhat ambiguous.
B. Unresolved issues and potential areas of future debate
One of the unresolved issues that may lead to future debate is the precise scope and limits of judicial review in cases involving the exercise of power under Article 356(1). While the Court recognized the need for judicial review, it did not provide a clear set of guidelines or criteria for determining the justiciability of such cases. This lack of clarity may lead to inconsistent interpretations and applications in future cases.
Another area of potential debate is the role of the Governor's report in the President's decisionmaking process under Article 356(1). The judgment did not provide definitive guidance on the weight to be accorded to the Governor's report or the circumstances under which the Court may scrutinize the report for legal malafides or other irregularities.
Furthermore, the judgment's emphasis on secularism and its implications for the dismissal of state governments under Article 356(1) may spark debates around the definition and boundaries of secularism in the Indian context. There may be differing interpretations of what constitutes a violation of secular principles and the extent to which such violations can justify the invocation of Article 356(1).
C. Conclusion and way forward
The S.R. Bommai v. Union of India judgment is a significant milestone in the interpretation and application of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. While it affirmed the principle of judicial review and the Court's role in upholding constitutional values, it also highlighted the need for further clarity and guidance on the scope and limits of such review.
Moving forward, it is crucial for the judiciary to continue refining and developing a coherent framework for assessing the justiciability of cases involving the exercise of power under Article 356(1). This framework should strike a balance between respecting the President's subjective satisfaction and ensuring that the exercise of power remains within constitutional boundaries.
Additionally, there is a need for ongoing dialogue and debate among legal scholars, policymakers, and the broader public on the interpretation of secularism and its implications for the dismissal of state governments. Such discussions can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of this complex issue and inform future judicial decisions.
Ultimately, the way forward lies in a continuous process of judicial interpretation, legislative refinement, and public discourse, aimed at upholding the constitutional values enshrined in the Indian Constitution while maintaining the delicate balance between the powers of the Union and the States.
RELATED Blog
0 comments