Judicial Review of President's Rule: Analyzing the Landmark S.R. Bommai Case and Its Impact on Indian Federalism

 

S.R. Bommai vs Union of India is a landmark judgment in the history of Indian constitutional law. This case primarily deals with the misuse of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the President of India to dismiss a state government and impose President's Rule if the government cannot function according to constitutional provisions.

 

Background of the Case:

1. Article 356 of the Indian Constitution:

• Article 356 allows the President of India to dissolve a state government if it is unable to function according to the provisions of the Constitution. This action is taken based on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers and is often referred to as "President's Rule."

• This power was intended to be used only in exceptional circumstances, but over time, it was often misused by the central government to dismiss state governments led by opposition parties.

1. Political Context:

• By the 1980s, the misuse of Article 356 had become a serious issue. Several state governments were dismissed by the central government on vague grounds, which was seen as a threat to the federal structure of the Indian Constitution. 

Facts of the Case:

• S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of Karnataka, heading a Janata Party government.
• In April 1989, his government was dismissed by the Governor of Karnataka, who claimed that the Bommai government had lost its majority in the assembly.
• Bommai challenged the imposition of President's Rule in the Karnataka High Court, but the court upheld the President's Rule. Bommai then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

The Legal Issues:

• Misuse of Article 356: The case raised the question of whether the President's Rule imposed under Article 356 was justifiable and within the constitutional framework.

• Judicial Review: The primary issue was whether the imposition of President's Rule could be subjected to judicial review by the courts.

•  Federalism: The case also questioned the balance of power between the central and state governments, and how to protect the federal structure of the Indian Constitution.
  

The Judgement:

   1.Judicial Review of Article 356:

• The Supreme Court, in a historic judgment, ruled that the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. This meant that the courts could question the validity of the central government’s decision to dismiss a state government.

• The court stated that if the imposition of President's Rule is found to be mala fide (in bad faith) or based on irrelevant considerations, it would be struck down.

   2. Guidelines for Use of Article 356:  

The court laid down specific guidelines to prevent the misuse of Article 356: 

•  Test of Majority:The court held that the majority of a government should be tested on the floor of the assembly, not in the Governor’s office or through any other means. If there is a doubt about whether the government enjoys the confidence of the assembly, a floor test must be conducted.

• Report of the Governor: The Governor’s report recommending President's Rule must be based on objective material and not on mere political considerations. The court clarified that the Governor should not act as an agent of the central government.

• Interim Relief: The court also allowed for the possibility of interim relief in cases where Article 356 is imposed, meaning the dismissed government could be restored temporarily if the court finds prima facie evidence of malafide action.

3.Impact on Federalism:

• The judgment reinforced the federal structure of India by restricting the central government’s power to arbitrarily dismiss state governments.

• The court emphasized that India is a union of states with a federal structure and that state governments cannot be dismissed without valid reasons.

Significance of the Judgement

 

1. Strengthening Democracy:

• The S.R. Bommai judgement is considered a milestone in protecting the democratic fabric of the country. By making Article 356 subject to judicial review, the court ensured that state governments cannot be arbitrarily dismissed by the central government.

•  It also established that the dismissal of a state government must be based on a clear constitutional breakdown, not on political differences or the whims of the central government.

    2. Preventing the Abuse of Power:

 

• The judgment curtailed the misuse of Article 356, which had been frequently invoked by successive central governments to dismiss opposition-led state governments.

• The guidelines provided by the court have acted as a check on the central government’s power, ensuring that Article 356 is used sparingly and only in genuine cases of constitutional breakdown.

 

   3. Judicial Activism:

 

• The case is also an example of judicial activism, where the judiciary stepped in to protect the Constitution and prevent the abuse of executive power.

•  The judgment showed that the judiciary has the power and responsibility to protect the constitutional rights of the states and prevent the overreach of the central government.

 

Conclusion

 

The S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case is a landmark in Indian constitutional law because it restored the balance of power between the central and state governments. It ensured that Article 356 could no longer be misused as a tool of political convenience by the central government. The Supreme Court's decision to allow judicial review of the imposition of President's Rule reinforced the principle of federalism and protected the democratic framework of the nation.

This judgment is a crucial safeguard for the functioning of India’s democracy, ensuring that the autonomy of state governments is respected and that the central government cannot overstep its authority without just cause.