SR Bommai Case: Strengthening Democracy and Federalism
The imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution has been a contentious issue in Indian politics, often seen as a tool for the central government to destabilize opposition-led state governments. However, the landmark judgment in the SR Bommai v Union of India case by the Supreme Court three decades ago marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of this provision, significantly limiting its misuse and strengthening democracy and federalism in India.
Article 356, commonly known as President’s Rule, grants the Union government the power to dismiss democratically elected state governments and dissolve legislative assemblies in cases where a state cannot function constitutionally. While the framers of the Constitution intended this provision to be used sparingly and in cases of genuine emergency, its frequent misuse by various Union governments led to political upheaval and undermined the principles of democracy and federalism.
The SR Bommai case, which was heard by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court, arose from the dismissal of the SR Bommai-led Janata Party government in Karnataka by the central government in 1989. This dismissal, like many others before it, was seen as politically motivated and raised questions about the arbitrary use of Article 356 to topple state governments.
The judgment in the SR Bommai case addressed several key issues related to the invocation of Article 356. Firstly, it established that proclamations under Article 356 were subject to judicial review, allowing courts to strike down such proclamations if found to be mala fide or based on irrelevant grounds. This marked a departure from the earlier position where such proclamations were considered non-justiciable.
Secondly, the judgment clarified the scope and limits of the President’s powers under Article 356, emphasizing that the President must have relevant material, such as a governor’s report, before imposing President’s Rule. The court also held that the imposition of President’s Rule could be challenged on the grounds of violating the principles of federalism and democracy enshrined in the Constitution.
Furthermore, the judgment addressed the consequences of holding a proclamation of President’s Rule invalid, stating that the dissolved government could be restored, even if Parliament had previously approved such a proclamation. This ensured that the review of the imposition of President’s Rule had meaningful consequences and provided relief to affected state governments.
The impact of the SR Bommai judgment was significant in curbing the arbitrary use of Article 356 and strengthening the principles of democracy and federalism in India. The judgment made it harder for the central government to dismiss state governments and dissolve legislative assemblies without valid reasons, thereby safeguarding the democratic process and ensuring greater accountability in governance.
However, despite the positive impact of the SR Bommai judgment, challenges remain in ensuring the effective functioning of Article 356. The provision continues to be invoked in certain situations, often leading to controversies and political instability. Moreover, the judgment did not entirely eliminate the potential for misuse of Article 356, as seen in recent instances such as the imposition of President’s Rule in Jammu & Kashmir.
In conclusion, while the SR Bommai judgment represented a significant milestone in India’s constitutional history, it is essential to continue monitoring and addressing issues related to the invocation of Article 356 to uphold the principles of democracy, federalism, and constitutional governance in the country.