Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. R. BOMMAI
Versus
Union of India
Decided on, March 11, 1994
Constitution of India, Article 356 (1, Articles 74 (2, 163, 355, 356, 357 - Union Territories Act, 1963- Section 51- Centre-State relationship- Presidents Proclamation- machinery for the governance of the country- Constitutional provisions relating to the issue of the Proclamation - Constitution of India has created a federation but with a bias in favour of the Centre. Within the sphere allotted to the States, they are supreme.
Finding of the Court:
If the court strikes down the Proclamation, it has the power to restore the dismissed government to office and revive and reactivate the Legislative Assembly wherever it may have been dissolved or kept under suspension. In such a case, the court has the power to declare that acts done, orders passed and laws made during the period the Proclamation was in force shall remain unaffected and be treated as valid. Such declaration, however, shall not preclude the government/legislative Assembly or other competent authority to review, repeal or modify such acts, orders and laws - Secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution. While freedom of religion is guaranteed to all persons in India, from the point of view of the State, the religion, faith or belief of a person is immaterial. To the State, all are equal and are entitled to be treated equally. In matters of State, religion has no place. No political party can simultaneously be a religious party. Politics and religion cannot be mixed. Any State government which pursues unsecular policies or unsecular course of action acts contrary to the constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article 356.
- Proclamation dated 21/04/1989 in respect of Kamataka (Civil No. 3645 of 1989 and the Proclamation dated 11/10/1991 in respect of Meghalaya (Transferred Case Nos. 5 and 7 of 1992 are unconstitutional ). But for the fact that fresh elections have since taken place in both the States - and new Legislative Assemblies and governments have come into existence - we would have formally struck down the Proclamations and directed the revival and restoration of the respective governments and Legislative Assemblies. The Civil No. 3645 of 1989 and Transferred Cases Nos. 5 and 7 of 1992 are allowed accordingly. Civil Nos. 193 and 194 of 1989 relating to Nagaland are disposed of in terms of the opinion expressed by us on the meaning and purport of Article 74 (2) of the Constitution.
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 of the Constitution
( 3 ) THE Indian Constitution is both a legal and social document. It provides a machinery for the governance of the country. It also contains the ideals expected by the nation. The political machinery created by the Constitution is a means to the achieving of this ideal
( 4 ) TO what extent we have been successful in achieving the constitutional ideals is a question with a wide spectrum which needs an elaborate debate. Harking back to the question involved in this case, the Framers of the Constitution met and were engaged for months together with the formidable task of drafting the Constitution on the subject of Centre-State relationship that would solve all the problems pertaining thereto and frame a system which would enure for a long time to come. During the debates and deliberations, the issues that seemed to crop up at every point was the States rights vis-a-vis the central rights. Some of the members seem to have expressed their conflicting opinions and different reasonings and sentiments on every issue influenced and inspired by the political ideology to which they were wedded. The two spinal issues before the Constituent Assembly were (1 what powers were to be taken away from the States; and (2 how could a national supreme government be formed without completely eviscerating the power of the State. THOSE favouring the formation of a strong central government insisted that the said government should enjoy supreme power while others supporting States rights expostulated that view. The two sides took turns making their representations but finally realising that all might be lost, they reached a compromise that resolved the deadlock on the key issue and consequently the present form of government, more federal in structure, came into being instead of a unitary government
( 5 ) IT is an undeniable fact that the Constitution of India was ordained and established by the people of India for themselves for their own governance and not for the governance of individual States. Resultantly, the Constitution acts directly on the people by means of power communicated directly from the people
( 6 ) IN regard to the Centre-State relationship there are various reports suggesting certain recommendations for the smooth relationship of both the governments without frequently coming into conflicts thereby creating constitutional crisis. The reports suggesting recommendations are that of (1 Administrative Reforms Commission 1969; (2 Rajmannar Committee 1969; and (3 Sarkaria Commission 1987
( 7 ) WHEN the question with regard to the Centre-State relations stands thus, the publication issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat giving an analytical tabular form with significant details pertaining to the Presidents Proclamation made under Article 356 (1 of the
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
