This case analysis is written by Lochna V Khatri from St. Joseph’s College of Law. This is an exhaustive article that summarises the view of the bench and the judgment delivered.
Case Title
Case: S.R. Bommai and Ors. V. UOI and Ors.
Citation of the case: AIR 1994 SC 1918
Coram: Kuldeep Singh (J), P.B Swant (J), Katikithala (J), S.C. Agarwal (J), Yogeshwar Dayal (J), B.P. Jeevan Reddy (J), S.R. Pandian (J), A.M. Ahmadi (J), and J.S. Verma (J).
Court: Supreme Court of India.
Introduction
The assignment is a legal analysis of the Supreme Court's landmark case and judgment S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, where the Court went into great detail on the provisions of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution and other relevant problems. This case had a significant impact on the relationship between the federal government and the states. The ruling aimed to stop the blatant abuse of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the President to declare martial law on state governments. The method used in the analytical report is the method of “FILAC”.
Facts
The case involved the transferred cases and appeals of Rajasthan, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, and Nagaland. The state legislatures of these states were dissolved. This dissolution has been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
However, due to the limited scope of the topic, only the facts of S.R. Bommai and the dissolution of the Karnataka state legislature will be elaborated upon.
From the year 1988 to 1989 the Janata Dal was the ruling party of Karnataka. S.R Bommai was the Chief Minister then. Around 20 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) were dissatisfied with the expansion of the ministry and started defecting from the party. No confidence was expressed in the party of S.R. Bommai and the letter was sent to the Governor on 17th April 1989. The then governor sent the report to the President of India on April 20th 1989. On the very same day, parliament was held to convene a confidence motion as seven MLAs then claimed that their signatures were obtained by misrepresentation. S.R. Bommai requested the Governor to allow a floor test and to allow him to prove his majority in the parliament. Article 356 of the Constitution of India implemented President rule in the state of Karnataka and proclaimed state emergency by dissolving the Janata Dal party headed by S. R. Bommai.
A writ petition challenging the issuance of article 356 was brought before the High Court but the three-judge bench of the High Court dismissed the petition on certain grounds that the report of the Governor was not irrelevant and further that the floor test was neither mandatory nor a prerequisite to sending of report to the President.
An appeal was then filed in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the High Court.
Issues
The Supreme court consisting of a nine-judge bench devised certain issues which they felt were pertinent to be answered in the case. These are as follows:
The validity and justification of proclamation made under Article 356 of the Constitution of India.
The scope and validity of judicial review of the President's rule in the state under Article 356 and lastly the nature of Indian polity.
Laws
This is where the Court went into great detail on the provisions of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution and other relevant problems. This case had a significant impact on the relationship between the federal government and the states. The ruling aimed to stop the blatant abuse of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the President to declare martial law on state governments.
Several laws under the constitution of India were argued during the advancement of detailed arguments. These are as follows:
The approval of the proclamation was also looked into. Several contentions were also raised on the Federal structure of the constitution, The Preamble of the constitution, Judicial review, Relations between the centre and state, and the basic structure of the Constitution.
Analysis
View of J Sawant
Sawant (J) observed that there are certain precedent conditions to the issuance of Proclamation under Article 356(1) which the President is required to rely upon objectively. The conditions have to be met and in the present case, whether the conditions have been satisfied is subject to Judicial review.
J Sawant further pointed out that the powers exercised by the President under the aforementioned article are on the advice of the council of ministers under Article 74(1). These ministers need not be from just one party. These ministers can be from any party or party as provided under the federal and pluralist democratic structure of the constitution.
Further, it was opined that the High Court had committed a grave mistake in ignoring most of the facts. There was immoderate haste made by the Governor in inviting the president to issue a proclamation and the issuance of the proclamation by the President based on the governor’s report suffered from mala fide. The proclamation issued was therefore invalid because the Governor could have looked into other alternatives and that the material relied upon was uncertain and not objective.
Views of Justice Jeevan Reddy and Agarwal J. :
Founding fathers of the Constitution of India wished to establish a strong centre and it is seen through the provisions of the constitution but this does not imply that the states are mere tailpieces of the centre. The power conferred under Article 367(1) is not absolute power but a conditional power and it clearly states that it must be used only when the grave necessity arises.
Furthermore, the proclamation must be endorsed by both the houses of the parliament, and if that is not done then the proclamation lapses at the end of two months under clause (3) of Article 356. Until the approval, the President has the power to only keep the assembly under suspended animation and not dissolved. They opined that article 356 of the constitution is not resistant to judicial review. It was further opined The High court had majorly erred in holding that floor test is not obligatory. Furthermore, the judgment of the High court was therefore set aside.
Concurring opinion by Pandian J. :
The powers of the President under Article 356 must be sparingly used otherwise frequent usage will cause an imbalance in the structure of the constitution.
View of Ramaswamy J. :
It was held that the preamble of the constitution of India is an essential part of the constitution. The centre must protect the state government under Article 356. The article must not be used for political gain and must be sparingly used. Justiciability and judicial review are not synonymous terms as justiciability is a constitutional power. There is no express provision in the constitution that talks about the revival of dissolved assembly.
Summary including opinions of other members of the Bench
The true leverage is empowered with the Council of Ministers although it is seen that the President carries his power under Article 356(1) as he can only enjoy this authority after the suggestions of the Council of Ministers.
Before the suggestion of the President's rule, the Chief Minister of a State must be decided on the floor of the House of the parliament rather than the Governor's Chambers.
The Karnataka High Court was incorrect in ruling that it was not obligatory to have the floor test and not a precondition for delivering a report to the President for his action under Article 356(1).
When the former Ministry drops support in the House of the parliament, the Governor should consider forming an alternate Ministry rather than dissolving and asking the President to issue a proclamation.
On the aspect of whether the court can exercise its judicial authority with regards to a proclamation, it has to meet certain conditions such as the determination of whether the proclamation which has been issued was for relevant reasons or not and whether there was any material cause to the effect. The intention behind the issuance of the proclamation also must not be disregarded.
There should be evidence before the President that the State's government cannot function in conformity with the Constitution, and the evidence should be such that any reasonable person would reach the same conclusion. The President's pleasure based on such material evidence will not be questioned, and if it is, it will be disputed.
It was held that the powers empowered to the president under Article 356 are conditional and not absolute.
The Central government has to provide the substantial material behind the issuance of the proclamation and its legitimacy.
Dissolution of the Assembly is not the immediate result of issuing the proclamation. The necessity of issuing the proclamation and dissolving the assembly must be serious in nature.
The powers of the President enshrined under Article 356 (1) are contained and checked by The provisions of Article 356(3). Article 356(3) provides for the procedure of the approval of the proclamation within two months. It also mentions that if the same is not approved by both the houses of the Parliament then the proclamation expires. As a result, the dissolution of the state Assembly should not be carried out.
The dismissed State Government and the dissolved legislature will not be restored once the proclamation is approved by both the houses of the Parliament. It then expires after six months or can be scrapped before time.
By the application of these principles of law and the constitution of India, the proclamation of Karnataka was held invalid.
Conclusion
In this case analysis, it can be concluded that the Apex Court highlighted the pertinence of the parliamentary system of government and how it needs to be strengthened. The bench further interpreted the term “democratic” to the country’s responsible parliamentary administration, which is answerable to the legislature which has been elected by the people of the country. The Court further deemed "democracy" to be at the crux of the Indian Constitution.
The Preamble serves as the foundation to the policymakers of the country and was considered the most important element of The Constitution. Apart from this the democratic form of the present government, the federal structure of the constitution and the functioning of the government, the integrity and the unity of the nation, secularism, socialism, social justice, and judicial scrutiny were all held to be rudimentary elements of the Constitution.
Giving total powers to the executive under Article 356(1) has the potential to jeopardize the democratic principles and ethics of the Constitution of India.
References
Comments