- Justice S. Ratnavel PandianFavored (Majority on Review)
- Justice A.M. AhmadiFavored (Majority on Review)
- Justice Kuldip SinghFavored (Majority on Review)
- Justice J.S. VermaFavored (Majority on Review)
- Justice P.B. SawantFavored (Majority on Review)
- Justice B.P. Jeevan ReddyFavored (Majority on Review)
- Justice S.C. AgrawalFavored (Majority on Review)
- Justice M.M. PunchhiOpposed (Non-Justiciable)
- Justice K. RamaswamyOpposed (Limited Review)
- Constitution of India (Article 356 - President's Rule, Article 131, 355, 365, 74)
- Sarkaria Commission Report (on Centre-State relations)
- State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) (Previous case on Art 356)
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973)
- Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975)
This landmark case arose from the dismissal of the S.R. Bommai government in Karnataka in 1989, along with several other state governments around that time, under Article 356 of the Constitution (President's Rule). The Union Government frequently used this article to dismiss state governments led by opposition parties, often on grounds of political convenience rather than a genuine "failure of constitutional machinery."
The petitioners challenged these dismissals, arguing they were arbitrary and misused. The central question before the 9-judge bench was whether the President's proclamation under Article 356 was absolute and beyond judicial scrutiny (i.e., a "political question") or if it was justiciable and subject to judicial review.
ARGUMENTS
Petitioners' Case (S.R. Bommai & States)
- The power under Article 356 is not absolute; it is conditional upon the President's "satisfaction" being based on relevant and objective material.
- The President's "satisfaction" is not a personal or political whim but a constitutional power that must be exercised fairly and reasonably.
- Judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution and extends to scrutinizing proclamations under Article 356 for mala fides, irrelevant grounds, or lack of supporting material.
- Frequent misuse of Article 356 undermines federalism, which is a basic feature of the Constitution.
- A state assembly should not be dissolved until Parliament approves the proclamation; it should only be kept in suspended animation.
Respondent's Case (Union of India)
- The President's "satisfaction" under Article 356 is subjective and based on a wide range of political factors, making it a "political question" unsuitable for judicial review.
- The previous ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) held that the President's satisfaction was non-justiciable.
- The courts cannot examine the sufficiency or relevance of the material on which the President acted.
- The power to dissolve the assembly is a necessary part of imposing President's Rule.
Case Progression Timeline
Dismissal of Bommai Government
President's Rule imposed in Karnataka, dismissing the S.R. Bommai government without giving a chance to prove majority on the floor of the House.
April 21, 1989Other Dismissals
Similar dismissals of state governments in Nagaland, Meghalaya, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh occur, also challenged.
1988 - 1992High Court Rulings
Karnataka High Court dismisses Bommai's petition. Other High Courts give conflicting rulings on the justiciability of Article 356.
1989 - 1992Hearing by 9-Judge Bench
Supreme Court constitutes a 9-judge bench to definitively settle the law on the scope and judicial review of Article 356.
1993Supreme Court Judgment
The 9-judge bench, in a landmark 7:2 decision, holds that proclamations under Article 356 are subject to judicial review, severely curbing its misuse.
March 11, 1994The Supreme Court, by a 7:2 majority, delivered a landmark judgment that significantly curbed the misuse of Article 356. The Court held that the President's proclamation imposing President's Rule is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.
It laid down several key principles: 1. The President's "satisfaction" must be based on objective material and is not immune from judicial scrutiny. 2. The Court can strike down a proclamation if it is found to be mala fide, based on wholly irrelevant or extraneous grounds, or is arbitrary. 3. The State Assembly should not be dissolved immediately. It should only be suspended until Parliament approves the proclamation. If Parliament fails to approve it, the assembly must be reinstated. 4. Secularism was explicitly held to be a basic feature of the Constitution. 5. A state government's failure to prove its majority on the floor of the House is the most relevant test, not the subjective assessment of the Governor.
COURT'S ANALYSIS
The various majority opinions (led by Justices Sawant and Jeevan Reddy) collectively dismantled the "political question" doctrine as applied to Article 356. They reasoned that the power under Article 356 was an extraordinary and exceptional power, not a common tool for political maneuvering. By making its exercise justiciable, the Court reinforced the principles of federalism and democracy, which it held were part of the basic structure. The most significant practical outcome was the ruling that the Assembly should only be suspended, not dissolved, pending parliamentary approval. This gave a dismissed government a chance to be restored if Parliament did not ratify the President's proclamation, effectively ending the practice of immediate dissolution to force new elections.
FINAL VERDICT
- The proclamation of President's Rule under Article 356 is justiciable (subject to judicial review).
- The President's "satisfaction" must be based on objective material; the proclamation can be struck down if found mala fide or based on irrelevant grounds.
- The Union Government has the burden to prove that relevant material existed for the proclamation.
- The State Legislative Assembly should not be dissolved until the proclamation has been approved by both Houses of Parliament. It can only be suspended.
- If the proclamation is struck down by a court, the dismissed state government and legislative assembly are automatically restored.
- Secularism was held to be a Basic Feature of the Constitution.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The power of the President under Article 356 is not absolute but conditional, and the proclamation is subject to judicial review. The 'satisfaction' of the President must be based on objective material and is reviewable on grounds of mala fides or patent arbitrariness. Federalism and Secularism are basic features of the Constitution, and any action under Article 356 that undermines them is unconstitutional. The dissolution of a state assembly is not a necessary consequence of the proclamation and should not be done until Parliament approves it.