SR Bommai Judgment
Source: Hindustan Times
GS II: Functions and responsibilities of the Union and the States, issues and challenges pertaining to the federal structure, devolution of powers and finances up to local levels and challenges therein
Overview
- News in Brief
- About SR Bommai Case
- Article 356: President’s Rule
Why in the News?
The Supreme Court of India delivered the landmark SR Bommai Judgment 30 years ago.
News in Brief
- While the national Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi is etched in collective Indian memory, the more frequently imposed state emergency provision, Article 356, is now rarely used.
- Supreme Court judges who decided SR Bommai v Union of India 30 years ago today for this change.
- Although Article 356 was meant to be used seldom, it has been widely abused by several Union governments to overthrow state governments led by the opposition.
About SR Bommai Case
The SR Bommai case, officially known as S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, is a landmark judgment in Indian constitutional law that dealt with the delicate balance of power between the Union Government and the State Governments. This case is significant for its interpretation of the principles of federalism, secularism, and democracy enshrined in the Indian Constitution.
Facts and Background
- The case originated from the dismissal of the S.R. Bommai-led Janata Dal government in Karnataka in 1989.
- The Central Government, under Prime Minister V.P. Singh, invoked Article 356 of the Indian Constitution to impose the President’s Rule in the state.
- This action led to a legal challenge by S.R. Bommai and others, questioning the validity of the dismissal.
Key Issues and Arguments
- Misuse of Article 356: The central issue was whether the President’s Rule imposed by the Union Government was constitutional or whether it amounted to an abuse of power.
- Federalism and State Autonomy: The case raised questions about the autonomy of state governments and the extent of the Union’s authority to intervene in state matters.
- Secularism and Democracy: The case also touched upon the principles of secularism and democracy, as the misuse of Article 356 could potentially undermine these foundational principles of the Indian Constitution.
Judgment and Significance
- In its landmark judgment delivered in 1994, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the power of the President or Governor to dismiss a state government and impose the President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.
- The court laid down stringent guidelines to prevent the arbitrary use of Article 356 and to ensure that it is invoked only in exceptional circumstances when the constitutional machinery in a state has completely broken down.
Article 356: President’s Rule
- Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, commonly referred to as “President’s Rule,” empowers the President of India to assume direct control of a state’s governance if the constitutional machinery in that state breaks down.
- This provision is invoked when a state government is unable to function according to constitutional provisions, typically due to political instability, failure of governance, or the breakdown of law and order.
- However, the use of Article 356 is a controversial and sensitive matter, as it involves the central government assuming authority over a democratically elected state government.
- Article 356 is derived from Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which provided similar powers to the Governor-General.
- According to data, between 1950 and 2016, the President’s Rule was imposed more than 110 times across different states in India.
Daily Current Affairs: Click Here