Polity & Governance GS 2 In the news 6 times

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994)

Judicial Safeguards Against Misuse of Article 356

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India [(1994) 3 SCC 1] is the most consequential Supreme Court judgment on Article 356. A nine-judge constitutional bench held that the imposition of President's Rule is subject to judicial review and that a floor test in the Legislative Assembly is the only constitutionally valid method to determine majority.

Key details

Background: S.R. Bommai was Chief Minister of Karnataka when the Janata Dal government was dismissed by the Governor (1989) and President's Rule imposed, based on alleged defections — without any floor test.
Ruling on Judicial Review: The Court held that the Presidential Proclamation under Article 356(1) is not immune from judicial review; it can be examined on grounds of mala fide exercise of power, lack of any relevant material, or irrelevant considerations.
Floor Test Mandate: The Court categorically held that the Governor cannot decide a government's majority subjectively; only an Assembly floor test can determine it — this prevents pre-emptive imposition of President's Rule.
Secularism: The Court held that a state government acting against constitutional values (including secularism) can be dismissed — but the bar is high and judicial review remains available.
Impact: The judgment effectively curtailed the arbitrary use of Article 356 by the Centre. Between 1950 and 1994, President's Rule was imposed over 90 times; incidence fell sharply after the Bommai judgment.
A related protective mechanism: if a no-confidence motion is pending in a state assembly, the Governor cannot recommend President's Rule until the motion is decided on the floor.