Facts Of The Case:
- The Janata Party is the largest party in the Karnataka state legislature
to form the Government under the leadership of S.R. BOMMAI. In September,
1988, Janata party and lok dal merged to form the new Janata dal's. The
department was expanded by the inclusion of 13 members. Two days later, K.R.
MOLAKERY, Janata Dal's legislature is paralyzed in the party. He produced a
letter to Governor Pekentanti Venkatasubbaiah allegedly signed by
legislators supporting the department, withdrawing their support.
- As a result, on April 19, the emperor sent a report to the President
stating that there was a disagreement with the ruling party. He also pointed
out because of the withdrawal of the support of the said legislators, the
Prime Minister, Bommai did not order the majority in the assembly and as a
result, it was inappropriate under the Constitution, for the Government to
be governed by a Minister.
- A letter of complaint was filed on April 26, 1989, to challenge the
validity of the proclamation. A special 3 judge panel of the Karnataka High
Court has withdraw the application.
On August 7,1988, the President proclaimed based on the report of the governor
and dismissed the government of Nagaland thereby terminating the legislature.
The validity of the proclamation was challenged in the Gauhati High Court. The
division bench comprising the Chief Justice and J. Hansaria, listens to the
request .But, before the third judge could hear the case, the union of India,
led by Rajiv Gandhi of the Congress party, moved the court to a special hearing
and the case continued in the Supreme Court.
- As a result of the demolition of Babri Masjid, the Central Government has
fired BJP Government of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh.
Consequently, on December 15,1992, the President proclaimed article 356
excelling the State Government and abolishing the legislative assemblies of
Petitioner- S.R Bommai v/s Respondent- Union Of India
Bench: S.R.Pandian, A.M. Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, J.S.Verma, P.B. Sawant,
K.Ramaswamy, S.C.Agarwal, Yogeshwar Dayal, B.P Jeevan Reddy.
Date Of Judgement- March 11, 1994.
Issues Raised In The Case:
Judgement Of The Court:
- Whether the President's rule inflicted in the six states is
- Whether the President has unchained rules to proclaim article 356(1) of
the Indian constitution?
This case deals with assessing the lawful mechanism and searching the whole area
of Constitutional imperative on Central State relations and the contentions role
of State Governors calling President's rule. The fact that under the system of
our Constitution great power is discussed upon the centre vis- a vis the states
does not mean that the States are little appendices of the centre. The center
cannot temper with their powers.
This decision is acknowledged to be an important judgement as it has put an end
to the arbitrary expulsion of State Governments under article 356 has to
function .The judgement presumed that the power of the President is not absolute
but an accustomed power and the presidential proclamation is not excused from
the judicial analysis.
Written By Srishti