Back
S.R.PANDIAN, YOGESHWAR DAYAL, S.C.AGRAWAL, P.B.SAWANT, K.RAMASWAMY, J.S.VERMA, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, A.M.AHMADI, KULDIP SINGH
S. R. Bommai – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Nature of Indian Constitution: The Constitution creates a federation with a bias in favor of the Centre; States are supreme within their allotted sphere, but Centre holds residuary powers, can alter State boundaries/names, and exercises significant financial/administrative control. (!) [1000356340012][1000356340013][1000356340015][1000356340016][1000356340017][1000356340018][1000356340019][1000356340020][1000356340021][1000356340022][1000356340023]
Federal Character: India is a quasi-federal structure mixing federal and unitary elements, leaning unitary; single citizenship, integrated judiciary, and emergency powers emphasize national unity over State sovereignty. (!) [1000356340012][1000356340013][1000356340014][1000356340015][1000356340016][1000356340017][1000356340018][1000356340019][1000356340020][1000356340021][1000356340022][1000356340023]
Secularism as Basic Feature: Secularism is embedded in the Constitution (explicit post-42nd Amendment); State treats all religions equally, religion irrelevant in State affairs; no State patronage to any religion; politics and religion cannot mix; unsecular State policies justify Article 356 action. (!) [1000356340024][1000356340025][1000356340026][1000356340027][1000356340028][1000356340029] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Article 356 Scope: Power exercised sparingly on President's subjective satisfaction (via Union Council of Ministers) that State government cannot function per Constitution; based on Governor's report or otherwise; not for good governance/maladministration but constitutional breakdown (e.g., internal subversion, physical breakdown). (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000356340053][1000356340054][1000356340055][1000356340056][1000356340057][1000356340058][1000356340059][1000356340060]
Judicial Review Parameters: Proclamation reviewable for mala fides, irrelevant/extraneous grounds, or no material; not merits/adequacy; material must exist and be relevant; Article 74(2) bars inquiring advice but not underlying material (privilege under Evidence Act possible). (!) [1000356340031][1000356340032][1000356340033][1000356340034][1000356340035][1000356340040][1000356340041][1000356340042][1000356340043][1000356340044][1000356340045][1000356340046][1000356340047][1000356340048][1000356340052]
Governor's Role: Governor reports constitutional failure objectively; floor test obligatory for majority claims (except violence); hasty subjective assessments invalid; warnings/directions under Article 355 preferred before Article 356. [1000356340116][1000356340117][1000356340118][1000356340119][1000356340120][1000356340121]
Dissolution/Removal Timing: Suspend (not dissolve) Assembly until Parliament approves Proclamation; dissolution post-approval if necessary; invalid Proclamation restores government/Assembly. [1000356340110][1000356340111][1000356340112][1000356340113][1000356340114]
No Quia Timet Relief: No pre-Proclamation stay; interim stay possible post-Proclamation if live issue, but expedite disposal; no election stay if fait accompli. [1000356340049][1000356340050][1000356340115]
Karnataka Proclamation (21/04/1989): Invalid; Governor ignored floor test offer, relied on unverified letters/defections; no alternative government explored. [1000356340116][1000356340117][1000356340118][1000356340119]
Meghalaya Proclamation (11/10/1991): Invalid; Governor defied Supreme Court orders on voting rights, ignored floor test; Speaker manipulated disqualification/votes. [1000356340121][1000356340122][1000356340123]
Nagaland Proclamation (07/08/1988): Governor should have allowed floor test post-Chief Minister resignation; premature dissolution. [1000356340124]
MP/Rajasthan/HP Proclamations (15/12/1992): Valid; BJP governments' anti-secular actions (manifestos, kar sevak support, RSS links) post-Ayodhya demolition justified Centre's satisfaction of constitutional failure. [1000356340125][1000356340126][1000356340127][1000356340128][1000356340129][1000356340130][1000356340131][1000356340132][1000356340133][1000356340134][1000356340135][1000356340136][1000356340137][1000356340138][1000356340139][1000356340140][1000356340141][1000356340142][1000356340143][1000356340144][1000356340145][1000356340146][1000356340147][1000356340148][1000356340149][1000356340150][1000356340151]
Reliefs/Effects: No substantive reliefs (elections held); acts during invalid Proclamations valid; Parliament/State can review/validate. (!) [1000356340114][1000356340152][1000356340153]
Judgment
S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN
( 1 ) I have had the privilege of going through the erudite and scholarly judgments of my learned brothers making an exhaustive and in-depth analysis, evaluating the constitutional mechanism and exploring the whole realm of constitutional imperatives as envisaged by the Founding Fathers of the India n Constitution on Central-State relations and throwing abundant light on the controversial role of State governors inviting Presidents Rule and the mode by which the Union Cabinet and Parliament discharged their responsibility in this regard with reference to Articles 74 (2, 163, 355, 356, 357 and the other allied constitutional provisions
( 2 ) I find myself in agreement with the opinion of P. B. Sawant, J. on his conclusions 1, 2 and 4 to 8 with which B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. concurs in his judgment (speaking for himself and on behalf of S. C. Agrawal, J.) but so far as the reasoning and other conclusions are concerned, I agree fully with the judgment of B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. Yet I would like to give my brief opinion on the constitutional question of substantial importance in relation to the powers of the President to issue Proclamations under Article 356 (1 o
Dattatray Yedu Thombre VS State of Maharashtra - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1435: Identified as bad law. Explicitly states: "The judgments are also no longer good law in view of the decision in S R Bommai." This indicates the judgments referenced (likely prior cases distinguished or overruled by Bommai) are treated as no longer valid.
Majority of entries reference "S.R. Bommai v. Union of India" (1994) 3 SCC 1 or AIR 1994 SC 1918 positively, applying its principles on Article 356 proclamations, federalism, secularism, judicial review, and President's Rule. Examples:
umrao singh choudhary VS State Of M. P. - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 497: "held that the action is not beyond ..." (affirmative reliance).
Dr Umrao Singh Choudhary VS State Of M. P. - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 499: Considered presidential proclamation (relied upon).
Sri Mohan VS Sri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat - 1994 0 Supreme(Raj) 212: Reliance on specific paras (162,163, etc.), though notes "does not help the petitioner" (applied but outcome-specific).
State Election Commission, M. P. VS Ras Bihari Raghuwanshi - 1995 0 Supreme(MP) 189: Cited alongside Election Commission powers (consistent with).
Dhiresh Chandra Dutta : Tripura Sharmik Sikshak Karmachari Morcha and Another VS State of Tripura and Ors. - 1998 0 Supreme(Gau) 68: "federalism is one of the basis features" (affirmed).
Aruna Roy VS Union Of India - 2002 6 Supreme 437: Quoted directly and held thus (followed).
Office bearers of the Congress Party vs Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh - 2000 Supreme(Online)(AP) 16: "Discussed the conditions under which the President can intervene" (precedent status).
Yitachu MLA of the Tenth Nagaland Legislative Assembly Hutsu v. Union of India and Others - 2008 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 11: "discusses the limits of the Presidential power under Article 356" (precedent).
Numerous others (e.g., [JANGANVADI BHARAT ACADEMY OF CONSTITUTIONALISTS OF INDIA
VS P V NARSINGHA RAO P M
1995 0 Supreme(All) 1305](https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/02500036474), Deshraj Singh VS Gram Panchayat, Tilabujurg - 1997 0 Supreme(MP) 604, Sapru Jayakar Motilal C. R. Das VS Union Of India - 1999 0 Supreme(Pat) 493, SAEED VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 2006 0 Supreme(All) 3250, etc.) cite paras, quote holdings, or apply to Article 356/federalism/secularism without negative qualifiers.
Explanation: Overwhelming pattern of citation for support, quoting paras (e.g., 105,106; 145,146), and describing as "landmark," "supra," or basic structure authority indicates followed/approved treatment.
Sri Mohan VS Sri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat - 1994 0 Supreme(Raj) 212: "S.R.Bommai V. ... Union of India, (Supra) does not help the petitioner, placing reliance on paras..." – Cited but distinguished as inapplicable to facts.
NARAYAN SINGH VS SUNDERLAL PATWA - 2002 0 Supreme(SC) 832: "There are certain observations in Bommai case... which run contrary" – Observations noted as contrary to provision (limited/criticized in obiter).
AMRENDRA NATH SINGH VS BAR COUNCIL OF U. P. - 2000 0 Supreme(All) 177: Cited but "does not in any way affect the earlier judgment" – Distinguished as non-impactful.
Bondu Ramaswamy VS Bangalore Development Authority - 2010 4 Supreme 546: Question of repugnancy "arises only when..." – Applied with limitation.
Graziano Trasmissioni VS Goods And Services Tax - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 945: "Bommai (supra) is not found applicable" – Distinguished.
Explanation: Cited but explicitly not helpful, contrary, unaffected, or inapplicable to specific facts/issues.
Entries like SHRIRAM INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA - 1995 0 Supreme(All) 1050, Chandigarh Administration, Union Territory, Chandigarh VS Ajay Manchanda - 1996 5 Supreme 29, (lists Bommai alongside other cases without explicit approval/disapproval); (procedural safeguards prospective – unrelated to Bommai treatment).
Explanation: Bommai appears in string citations or contexts without clear affirmative/negative treatment signals.
Shantaram Namdeo Sathe VS State of Maharashtra - 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2525, Nayan VS Pranita - 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 583, Ajay Kumar Swami VS Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited - Consumer (2021), S. Veerabadran Chettiar VS E. V. Ramaswami Naicker - 1958 0 Supreme(SC) 101: No reference to Bommai or treatment indicators; appear as unrelated snippets (e.g., cheque, cruelty allegations, IPC s.295). Treatment unclear as they do not engage with the main case (Bommai).
Mohd. Haneefa Jan and Others v. State of J. & K. and Others - 2016 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 8, Mohd. Haneefa Jan VS State of J. & K. - 2016 0 Supreme(J&K) 130, Mohd. Haneefa Jan and Others v. State of J. & K. and Others - 2016 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 4: Reference "Union of India v. ..." (possibly Nabam Rebia or similar floor test case), not clearly Bommai; treatment as "law laid down" but ambiguous linkage.
Explanation: Lack specific Bommai citation or treatment keywords; could be misextracted or peripheral.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
