S. R. BOMMAI VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in S. R. Bommai Vs Union of India (1994) 2 SCR 644 held inter alia that imposition of the President Rule under Article 356 (1) is subject to judicial review.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Several Petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the imposition of President Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution in states of Meghalaya, Nagaland, Karnataka, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Himachal Pradesh.
The Supreme Court considered three important questions in respect of imposition of President Rule Under Article 356 of the Constitution of India in this case – (i) Whether proclamation of President Rule under Article 356 is amenable to judicial review ? (ii) If yes what is scope of judicial review ? and (iii) What is interpretation of “ a situation has arisen in which Government can not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of Constitution” ?
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
Article 356 of the Constitution provides for imposition of President Rule by proclamation by the President if the President is satisfied on the report of the Governor or otherwise that a situation has arisen wherein the government of a state cannot be carried on in accordance with provisions of the Constitution. After such proclamation the President may assume power vested in Governor or any other authority to himself except functions of State Legislature. The President may declare that legislative functions of State Legislature will be exercised under authority of Parliament.
The Supreme Court observed that conditions precedent to imposition of President Rule under Article 356 is – (i) the President should be satisfied on report of the Governor or otherwise and (ii) a situation has arisen wherein the government of the State can not be carried in in accordance with the Constitution. President’s opinion has to be based on objective material. Such material should show that constitutional government has become an impossibility. Once such material is shown to be in existence, the satisfaction of the President is not open to question. If no such material exists, the satisfaction of the President is open to challenge.
It was contended by Union that the power of judicial review is narrower in Constitutional Law in comparison to Administrative Law. Judicial Review in Constitutional Law extends only if actions are unconstitutional or ultra vires. Judicial Review can be resorted to in case of infringement of separation of powers or Fundamental Rights. This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review to the extent of examining whether conditions precedent to the issuance of proclamation has been satisfied or not. Such examination will necessarily involve scrutiny as to whether there existed material for satisfaction of the President that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State can not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It is not personal whim, wish. view, or opinion or the ipse dixit of the President dehors the material but a legitimate inference drawn from the material placed before him which is relevant for the purpose.
The Supreme Court concurred with Sarkaria Commission Report wherein certain illustrations were given wherein President Rule can be imposed under Article 356 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court also dispelled the contentions of the Union of India that judicial review of imposition of President Rule on advise of Council of Minister is barred as Article 74 (2) bars judicial review of any advise tendered by the Council of Ministers to the President. The Supreme Court negated this contention, firstly, on the ground that the purpose of Article 74 (2) was not to exclude any material from scrutiny of the courts but to provide that an order of the President cannot be challenged on the ground that it was contrary to the advice given by Council of Ministers or was issued without obtaining any advice from the ministers. Secondly, 74 (2) bars judicial review of advice tendered by the Council of Ministers but does not bar scrutiny of materials on the basis of which advice was tendered.
The Supreme Court held that such proclamation will be amenable to judicial review even if it has been approved by Parliament.
The Supreme Court noted that democracy, federalism and secularism is basic feature of Constitution. The Supreme Court dispelled the contention that if ruling parties in state suffer an overwhelming defeat in Lok Sabha, it will be ground for proclamation under Article 356.
The Supreme Court also endorsed the view of the Sarkaria Commission that President may issue waring to States as first measure before imposing President Rule under Article 356.
The Supreme Court held that the President cannot exercise power under Article 356 (1) (a) (b) and (c) till both the houses of Parliament have approved the proclamation. If the proclamation is declared invalid, the Court may restore the status quo ante.
The Supreme Court declared proclamation of President Rule in Karnataka, Meghalaya and Nagaland as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held proclamation of President Rule in Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh constitutional.
_________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.