1994 SR Bommai Case Verdict Decoded: How Did It Shape The SC's Stance On Article 370?

The Supreme Court's recent decision upholding the abrogation of Article 370 drew heavily upon its landmark 1994 judgement in the S.R. Bommai v Union of India case. This case dealt with the interpretation of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which allows the President to impose central rule in states experiencing a "failure of constitutional machinery."

But what is Article 356?

Article 356, rooted in Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, is popularly recognized as 'President's Rule.' It is also referred to as 'State Emergency' or 'Constitutional Emergency.'

Essentially, this provision addresses the 'failure of constitutional machinery in the state,' empowering the President to take over all state functions. It can be enforced for a maximum of six months at a stretch, with a total cap of three years.

Reimposing President's Rule beyond the initial six months necessitates approval from Parliament.

What is S. R. Bommai v. Union of India case?

The S. R. Bommai v. Union of India case, decided by the Supreme Court of India in 1994, is considered a landmark judgement regarding the interpretation of Article 356 of the Constitution of India and its limitations.

In 1989, the Congress government at the Centre dismissed the Janata Dal-led Karnataka government, headed by Chief Minister S. R. Bommai, by imposing President's rule.

The Governor of Karnataka, P. Venkatasubbaiah, had recommended President's rule after reportedly receiving 19 letters from MLAs withdrawing their support for Bommai's government.

Bommai challenged the dismissal in the Supreme Court, arguing that the President's action was unconstitutional and politically motivated.

The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, upheld the validity of Article 356 but laid down several important guidelines for its application.

The Court held that the President's decision to impose President's rule was not absolute and could be challenged in court.

The Court established the following guidelines for imposing President's rule:

• The President must have a "reasonable satisfaction" that the state government is unable to function according to the Constitution.
• There must be a failure of constitutional machinery, not just a political crisis.
• The Governor's report recommending President's rule must be based on objective facts and not mere speculation.
• The central government's decision must be immediately communicated to both Houses of Parliament for approval.
• The proclamation of President's rule must be laid before each House of Parliament within a month.

The Bommai judgment remains the definitive legal precedent for the application of Article 356, and has been invoked in recent challenges to President's rule in Uttarakhand (2016) and Arunachal Pradesh (2016), both of which were successfully overturned by the Supreme Court.