Author: Ishrat

Edited by: Sulesh Choudhary

ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE:

S.R. Bommai Vs UOI[1] is landmark case for article 356 this case crystal clears the power of President under article 356. this case is also talk about the basic structure doctrine and judicial review of power of president under article 356. This the leading case related to proclamation power of president. under this case SR Bommai was the Karnataka Chief Minister between August 1988 and April 1989. He led a Janata Dal government, which was dismissed on 21st April 1989 when President’s Rule (Article 356) was imposed in Karnataka. This case same issue like Meghalaya case Nagaland in both the case the state government was dissolve without giving the proper ground of dismissing the state government and state legislation. In S.R. Bommai’s case, on March 5, 1985 elections held to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly and the Janata Dal won 139 seats out of 225 seats. Shri R.K. Hegde was elected as the leader of Janata Dal and became the Chief Minister. Due to his resignation on August 12, 1988, Shri S.R. Bommai, was elected as leader of the party and became the Chief Minister. his government is dismissed on April 21,1989 and proclamation of emergency was declared on the bases that he loss majority. S.R. Bommai go to the governor P. Venkata Subbaiah and request him for the floor test of majority but governor refused to give any opportunity to test his majority in the assembly. In this scenario the Governor sent his second report to the President and exercising the power under Article 356 the President issued Proclamation, dismissed Bommai Government and dissolved the Assembly on April 21, 1989 and assumed the administration of the State of Karnataka. When a writ petition was filed on April 26, 1989, a special Bench of three Judges of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition. then he moves to the supreme court. in supreme court nine bench of judges give the landmark judgement .

Keywords: Article 356, Article 355, Jurisdiction of centre into state government, Procedure of proclamation, Judicial review

CASE DETAILS[2]

INTRODUCTION: –

The two spinal issues before the Constituent Assembly and supreme court were:

(1) what powers were to be taken away from the States; and

(2) how could a national supreme Government be formed without completely removing the power of the State. 

In this case mainly based on the state and centre relation here the mainly problem in front of court and legislative assembly is to which kind of power can be taken from the state government and when centre can be interfered in the power of state government in that what is the jurisdiction of centre also the procedure of the interference of centre into the state government. main article in this case on which case is revolve is Article 356. This issue become very important to resolve because at that time the central government misusing the power of Article 356. there is frequently use article 356 without giving any proper justification and there is lots of interference of centre into state government activities from 1951 to 19190 83 times the proclamation of emergency done. BR Ambedkar also said that, “I do not altogether deny that there is a possibility of these articles being abused or employed for political purposes… and I share the sentiments that such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead letter.”[3]

SR Bommai was the Karnataka Chief Minister between August 1988 and April 1989. He led a Janata Dal government, which was dismissed on 21st April 1989 when President’s Rule (Article 356) was imposed in Karnataka. This case is very impeccable with view of article 356 (state emergency) judgement of this case restrict the power of president and this case also very important related to basic structure doctrine it also tells the limitation of article 356 and also talk about the principle of federalism.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE: –

• R. Bommai was the chief minister of the Karnataka from1988 to April 1989 from Janata dal party with 139 seats out of 225 seats.
• Janata dal government was dismissed on 1^st April 1989 on that day he lost his majority he goes to the governor but governor also denied him to prove majority.
• Governor sends the report to the president and president rule was imposed.
• He moves to the High court where 3 bench of judges also denied
• After that S.R. Bommai move to supreme court where the Nine bench of judges give landmark judgement with respect to article 356

FACTS OF THE CASE [4]

• “In S.R. Bommai’s appeal the facts are that on March 5, 1985 elections held to the Karnataka State Legislative Assembly and the Janata Dal won 139 seats out of 225 seats and the Congress Party was the next largest party securing 66 seats. Shri R.K. Hegde was elected as the leader of Janata Dal and became the Chief Minister
• Due to his resignation on August 12, 1988, Shri S.R. Bommai, was elected as leader of the party and became the Chief Minister. As on February 1, 1989 the strength of Janata Dal was 111 and the Congress was 65 and Janata Party was 27, apart from others. On April 15, 1989 his expanding the Ministry caused dissatisfaction to some of the aspirants.
• One Kalyan Molakery and others defected from Janata Dal and he wrote letters on April 17 and 18, 1989 to the Governor enclosing the letters of 19 others expressing want of confidence in Shri Bommai.
• On April 19, 1989 the Governor of Karnataka sent a report to the President. On April 20, 1989, 7 out of 19 MLAs that supported Kalyan Molakery, wrote to the Governor that their signatures were obtained by misrepresentation and reaffirmed their support to Shri Bommai. On the same day the cabinet also decided to convene the assembly session on April 27, 1989 at 3.30 p.m. to obtain vote of confidence and Shri Bommai met the Governor and requested him, to allow floor-test to prove his majority and he was prepared even to advance the date of the session. In this scenario the Governor sent his second report to the President and exercising the power under Article 356 the President issued Proclamation, dismissed Bommai Government and dissolved the Assembly on April 21, 1989 and assumed the administration of the State of Karnataka.
• When a writ petition was filed on April 26, 1989, a special Bench of three Judges of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition.
• There are several cases in different reason of India where Question is raised on proclamation of president rule for example On October 1991 issued a proclamation under article 356 dismiss the Meghalaya government. In Nagaland on August 1988 on the bases of governor report the proclamation of president rule was imposed. There were many cases where the proclamation of president rule was imposed without proper justification or without giving proper giving the ground of use of article 356.”

LEGAL ISSUES RAISED: – (minimum 2 legal issues)

• Proclamation of President’s rule in a state.  On which are ground for the president rule should be impose.  what is the limitation of Article 356. and what are the power of President under article 356.
• Is this article come under the judicial review or not

PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS[5]

• “According to petitioner Bommai was not given the chance of proving majority.
• It was also argued that it can be prima facia ascertained by the fact of the case that Governor acted out of malice because governor does not have valid reason in the report which prove that the Karnataka government did not enjoy the support of majority
• According to petitioner the act of centre against the article 74(2) In this article the centre government must share the details related to the imposition of emergency with the state. and in this case the ground of proclamation the president rule was not given.”

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS[6]

• “Respondent was represented by the Attorney General. It was contented by the respondent that petitioner had no authority to challenge report which is given by the governor to the president via writ petition in HC.
• Governor has an immunity against the legal action against Article 361 of Indian constitution.
• Defendant also argued that the petitioner cannot claim the defendant to provide any document which were considered by the president to issue a proclamation made under Article 356 and the only report as a document can be shown to the petitioner which is made by Governor.
• Court has no authority to enquiry on the decision of President to issue proclamation under Article 356 Indian constitution.”

RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 356 in Constitution of India

356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State[7]

 “(1) If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation-

(a) Assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or anybody or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State;

(b) Declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;

(c) Make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to anybody or authority in the State:

      Provided that nothing in this clause shall authorise the President to assume to himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the operation of any provision of this Constitution relating to High Courts.

(2) Any such Proclamation may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Proclamation.

(3) Every Proclamation under this article shall be laid before each house of Parliament and shall, except where it is a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament:

      Provided that if any such Proclamation (not being a Proclamation revoking a previous Proclamation) is issued at a time when the House of the People is dissolved or the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during the period of two months referred to in this clause, and if a resolution approving the Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People before the expiration of that period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People.

(4) A Proclamation so approved shall, unless revoked, cease to operate on the expiration of a period of six months from the date of issue of the Proclamation:

      Provided that if and so often as a resolution approving the continuance in force of such a Proclamation is passed by both Houses of Parliament, the Proclamation shall, unless revoked, continue in force for a further period of six months from the date on which under this clause it would otherwise have ceased to operate, but no such Proclamation shall in any case remain in force for more than three years:

      Provided further that if the dissolution of the House of the People takes place during any such period of six months and a resolution approving the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the Council of States, but no resolution with respect to the continuance in force of such Proclamation has been passed by the House of the People during the said period, the Proclamation shall cease to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the House of the People first sits after its reconstitution unless before the expiration of the said period of thirty days a resolution approving the continuance in force of the Proclamation has been also passed by the House of the People:

      Provided also that in the case of the Proclamation issued under clause (1) on the 11th day of May, 1987 with respect to the State of Punjab, the reference in the first proviso to this clause to “three years” shall be construed as a reference to five years.

(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (4), a resolution with respect to the continuance in force of a Proclamation approved under clause (3) for any period beyond the expiration of one year from the date of issue of such proclamation shall not be passed by either House of Parliament unless–

(a) A Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, in the whole of India or, as the case may be, in the whole or any part of the State, at the time of the passing of such resolution, and

(b) The Election Commission certifies that the continuance in force of the Proclamation approved under clause (3) during the period specified in such resolution is necessary on account of difficulties in holding general elections to the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned: “

Article 355: –[8]

“Which talk about the duty of the union to prevent the state against external aggression and internal disturbance.” It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.”

JUDGEMENT: –

Bommai Case Judgement

This landmark verdict put restrictions on the centre for imposing the President’s Rule on states.

• supreme court of India while giving this landmark judgement held that the centre is not having the absolute power under article 356 of Indian constitution.
• power of president is not absolute power under article 356 9(1) it is subject to judicial review. Here supreme court held that according to article 74 (2) ” The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.” But the bar on this article by this judgement is that the court can ask for the material on the bases if which proclamation decision was taken “.
• Until then, the President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly and to dissolve the state Government but with the majority of both the houses
• In case the proclamation does not get the approval of both the Houses, it lapses at the end of a period of two months, and the dismissed government is revived.
• The suspended Legislative Assembly also come in the power.
• The supreme court also held that President by himself can only temporarily suspend the legislative assembly not to dissolve it. The dissolution of assembly come after the majority of both the houses.
• Supreme Court also quoted the thought of Dr B.R. Ambedkar here,” In fact I share the sentiments expressed … that the proper thing we ought to expect is that such articles will never be called into operation and that they would remain a dead letter. If at all, they are brought into operation, I hope the President, who is endowed with all these powers, will take proper precautions before actually Suspending the administration of the provinces. I hope the first thing he ‘will do would be to issue a mere warning to a province that has erred, that things were not happening in the way in which they were intended to happen in the Constitution.” according to Dr B.R. Ambedkar the power of this article use by the president only in the rarest of rare cases and with proper precaution and procedure.
• supreme court also held that secularism is also present in our constitution before the amendment of preamble and secularism is the basic feature of Indian constitution.
• supreme court declare that the proclamation in Karnataka and Meghalaya is unconstitutional and restore the state government
• supreme court also refer the Sarkari report of 1988 holding that the president should first issue warning instead of directly exercising the power under article 356 also government should first invite other parties to claim the majority in the house before the use of proclamation.

CONCLUSION & COMMENTS: –

In the case of S.R. Bommai Vs Union of India this the landmark judgement because its talk about the state relation with centre and also talk about the constitutional jurisdiction. in judgement supreme court restrict the arbitrary interference of central in state administration. this case also gives the guideline for imposing the president rule in the state under article 356. the supreme court in this case laid down that the power of the president to issue a proclamation is not absolute and is subject to judicial review.

REFERENCES: –

Manu Patra[9]

https://www.manupatrafast.com/?t=desktop

Indian kanoon[10]

https://indiankanoon.org/

Constitution of India

ENDNOTES:

[1] https://blog.ipleaders.in/s-r-bommai-v-union-of-india-power-of-presidents-rule-curtailed/

[2] ¹ “Indian Kanoon,” Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/ (accessed August 7, 2024).

[3]¹ “Article 356 of the Constitution,” Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, https://legalaffairs.gov.in/sites/default/files/Article%20356%20of%20the%20Constitution.pdf (accessed August 7, 2024).

[4] “Indian Kanoon,” Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/ (accessed August 7, 2024).

[5] ¹ “S.R. Bommai v. Union of India: Power of President’s Rule Curtailed,” iPleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/s-r-bommai-v-union-of-india-power-of-presidents-rule-curtailed/ (accessed August 7, 2024).

[6] ¹ “S.R. Bommai v. Union of India: Power of President’s Rule Curtailed,” iPleaders, https://blog.ipleaders.in/s-r-bommai-v-union-of-india-power-of-presidents-rule-curtailed/ (accessed August 7, 2024).

[7] “Indian Kanoon,” Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/ (accessed August 7, 2024).

[8] https://indiankanoon.org/

[9] https://www.manupatrafast.com/?t=desktop

[10] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8019/