Supreme Court of India Defines Constitutional Limits on Article 356 and Upholds Secularism as Basic Structure of the Constitution

Landmark S.R. Bommai Judgment Emphasizes Judicial Review of Presidential Proclamations and Protects Federalism and Democratic Values

In a landmark judgment delivered on March 11, 1994, the Supreme Court of India in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India decisively addressed the constitutional scope and limitations of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which empowers the President to impose President’s Rule in States upon failure of constitutional machinery. The judgment, authored by a nine-judge bench including Justices S. Ratnavel Pandian, A.M. Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, J.S. Verma, P.B. Sawant, K. Ramaswamy, S.C. Agrawal, Yogeshwar Dayal, and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, reaffirms the quasi-federal character of the Indian polity and establishes secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution.

The Court underscored that Article 356 is an extraordinary provision designed to be invoked sparingly and only when the President, acting on the aid and advice of the Union Council of Ministers, is satisfied that the Government of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution. The Court clarified that mere political differences between the Centre and the State or the defeat of a ruling party in Lok Sabha elections do not justify the imposition of President’s Rule. The judgment emphasized that the satisfaction of the President is subjective but must be based on relevant material; judicial review is available to ensure that such satisfaction is not mala fide or based on irrelevant or extraneous grounds.

A significant part of the judgment clarified the role and duties of the Governor as the constitutional link between the Union and the States. The Governor must act impartially and ascertain the majority support of the Council of Ministers, preferably through a floor test in the Legislative Assembly, before recommending President’s Rule. The Court criticized instances where Governors bypassed the floor test or submitted reports tainted by mala fides, leading to unconstitutional dismissal of State Governments.

In an in-depth analysis, the Court elucidated the federal nature of the Indian Constitution, describing it as “quasi-federal” with a strong Centre empowered to maintain national unity and integrity. It explained that Parliament can alter State boundaries and even dissolve Legislative Assemblies but underscored that States have independent constitutional existence within their legislative and executive spheres.

The judgment also laid down guidelines on the exercise of powers under Article 356, including that the President cannot dissolve a State Legislative Assembly before Parliament approves the proclamation, and if a proclamation is invalidated by the Court, the dismissed Government and dissolved Assembly can be restored. The Court rejected any notion that the President can assume partial functions of a State Government without dismissing it.

A historic aspect of the judgment is its reaffirmation that secularism is an integral and basic feature of the Indian Constitution. The Court highlighted that the State must maintain religious neutrality, ensuring equality of all religions and prohibiting religion-based politics. It held that political parties must uphold secularism as a constitutional principle; a party espousing religious agendas cannot be trusted to govern in accordance with constitutional values.

The judgment examined the political context of the cases before it, including the dismissal of the Janata Dal Government in Karnataka and the imposition of President’s Rule in Meghalaya and Nagaland, declaring those proclamations unconstitutional due to procedural improprieties and mala fides. On the other hand, it upheld the dismissal of BJP Governments in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh following the Babri Masjid demolition, recognizing the threat these Governments posed to the constitutional goal of secularism and national unity.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in S.R. Bommai is hailed as a constitutional milestone that protects federalism, strengthens democratic governance, and preserves secularism. It provides clear legal principles to prevent misuse of Article 356, mandates judicial scrutiny of Presidential proclamations, and affirms the constitutional duty of the Union to protect States without undermining their autonomy.

Statutory provisions:- Article 356, Article 355, Article 365, Article 74(1), Article 74(2), Article 32, Article 226, Article 3, Article 1, Article 25, Article 14, Article 15, Article 16, Representation of the People Act 1951 Section 123(3), Section 123(3A), Evidence Act Section 123

S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 87803