Published On: 25th October, 2024
Authored By: Diya Jain
D.E.S Shri Navalmal Firodia Law College
Introduction
The judgment in the case of SR Bommai v. Union of India, 1994, was one such watershed in the annals of Indian constitutional law, which fundamentally altered, once and for all, the contours of federalism and the balance of power between the central and state governments in India. It was a landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India, which stopped the redeeming blot of misusing Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, allowing President’s rule in states. This judgment has not only decided the limits of central authority but has also gone on to strengthen the federal structure of the Indian polity, turning out to be a milestone in the evolution of Indian democracy.
An understanding of the SR Bommai case needs to be carried out through the matrix of the political climate in India during the late 20th century. Indeed, since the early days of independence, India had seen innumerable cases of state governments being dismissed by the central government on many a time questionable ground. The practice soon became a tool for political maneuvering and started threatening the federal structure conceived by the makers of the constitution.
Under Article 356, the Indian Constitution grants power to the President to take over state administration in the event of a breakdown in constitutional machinery. However, the vagueness of this expression resulted in its misuse for political gains. Before the Bommai case, the Supreme Court had more or less kept itself away from interference since it felt that the matters were in the political domain.
Facts of the Case
The case originated from the dissolution of S.R. Bommai’s government in the State of Karnataka way back in 1989. Bommai was the then Chief Minister of Karnataka and was heading a Janata Dal government. The state governor, P. Venkatasubbaiah, wrote a letter to the President stating that Bommai had lost majority support in the assembly following defections. The President’s rule was imposed without allowing Bommai to prove his majority on the floor of the house, and the assembly was dissolved.
This was not a solitary incident. Similar dismissals had taken place in Meghalaya and Nagaland in 1988 and in Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan in 1992. These dismissals were challenged in several High Courts and finally reached the Supreme Court where they consolidated into what came to be known as the Bommai case.
Legal Issues
The case threw up a number of important legal questions:
What is the scope and limit of Article 356?
Can the judiciary, review the President’s decision to impose central rule in a state?
How should the principle of federalism be harmonised with the need for national integrity?
Arguments
It was thus urged that the imposition was arbitrary and violated the basic structure of the Constitution, more particularly, the federal character of the Indian polity. It was urged that the floor of the legislative assembly was the only forum for testing the majority of a government.
The Union government, however, continued to insist that the President’s satisfaction while imposing central rule was not amenable to judicial scrutiny. Article 356, according to them was a valuable instrumentality for preserving the unity and integrity of the nation.
Interventions were made by several states in the case, considering its implication on the concerned center-state relationship.
Judgment
What followed thereafter was the historic judgment made by the Supreme Court en banc consisting of nine Judges and gave several important principles:
Thus, the power under Article 356 of the Constitution is an extraordinary one and it is to be resorted to only in rare and exceptional cases.
The proclamation issued by the President under Article 356 is judicially reviewable.
The state assembly shall not be dissolved until the said proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament.
The court may revive a dismissed state government, in case it finds the President’s rule unjustified.
Secularism was declared as a basic feature of the Constitution.
The majority judgment, written by Justice P.B. Sawant, highlighted that the power under Article 356 is not absolute and can be exercised only on a real breakdown of constitutional machinery in a State.
Analysis
The Court’s reasoning was based on a strong concept of federalism as a basic feature of the Indian Constitution. It has accepted the fact that although India is a union of states, the states are not mere appendages of the center. The judgment struck a balance between the need for national unity and the autonomy of states.
The readiness of the Court to allow the President’s proclamation to the scrutiny of the judiciary was a marked departure from the previous practice. Such a stand unquestionably proved that the Constitution takes precedence over political expediency.
Impact and Significance
The impact and significance of the Bommai judgement were in its broad ramifications on Indian politics and the constitutional law:
It virtually checked the misuse of Article 356, and it was no longer feasible for the union government to dismiss state governments, as and when it so desired.
It more firmly cemented the federal structure by recognizing state governments as integral parts of the democratic system.
The decision also elevated ‘secularism’ beyond a simple principle and attained the status of a basic feature of the Constitution in itself. This will have far-reaching implications on how the Constitution can be interpreted in the future.
Its short-term impact was a decline in the number of resort-shifting to President’s rule. And in the long term, a more cooperative federalism culture was inculcated amongst the system’s stakeholders where discussion and bargaining were favored over the centre’s unilateral mandate.
Critiques and Debates
It remains, however, that the Bommai judgment is not beyond rebuke. Certain scholars argue that such a step essentially did no more than further politicize the judiciary, effectively placing the possibility of President’s rule under judicial review. Others would only derive from the judgment the principle that there are no clear criteria yet on what a breakdown in constitutional machinery is all about.
Political reactions to the decision, however, were mixed. While the regional parties hailed it with a broad acclamation as a check to central tyranny, some national parties lamented it as a bar to the central’s capacity to deal effectively with the crises in the states.
Aftermaths
The principles laid down in the Bommai case have been applied, without failure, in subsequent cases where the imposition of President’s rule was in question. For example, in Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006), the Supreme Court quashed the imposition of President’s rule in Bihar, citing the Bommai judgment.
However, the ‘principles’ remain difficult to implement in practice. What constitutes a breakdown of constitutional machinery continues to remain a vexed question, as recent instances of the imposition of President’s rule have shown.
Conclusion
The case of SR Bommai v. Union of India is hailed as one of the most important judgments in the constitutional history of India. In effectively outlining the use of Article 356 and bringing it within judicial purview, the Supreme Court has changed the relationships between the centre and the states in India. It has strengthened the federal structure of the Indian polity and has firmly put safeguards against the misuse of constitutional provisions for political ends.
The durable legacy of the case lies in strengthening the principle of federalism as a basic principle of Indian democracy. It remains a crucial reference point in centre-state relations, also acting as a point of reference in relation to the limits of central power. In India’s emergent democracy, the Bommai judgment shines through in being a beacon of how the judiciary can uphold the values of the constitution in balancing heterogeneous political interests within the intricate federal structure of the nation.
The principles laid down in the Bommai case assume as much relevance in today’s contemporary Indian politics as any other in the prevailing regime. Debates on state autonomy and central authority continue to remain an overriding factor in political discourse. They provide the guidelines necessary in solving the center-state conflict without affecting the unity of India, and at the same time, they do not compromise the federal character either.
References:
- R. Bommai v Union of India 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1
- Case summary of S.R. Bommai V. Union Of India https://articles.manupatra.com/article-details/Case-Comment-on-the-Supreme-Court-Judgement-SR-Bommai-V-Union-Of-India
