S.R. Bommai v Union of India (Supreme Court, 1994) — the Preamble's strong Centre, the federal character, and the limits on President's rule

Bommai is cited in three different places in this paper: for the proposition that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, for the Court's description of the Indian federation, and, in Unit 4, for judicial review of a Proclamation under Article 356. In this unit the first two are what the examiner wants.

Elections to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly were held on 5 March 1985; the Janata Dal won 139 of 225 seats, Hegde became Chief Minister, and on his resignation in August 1988 S.R. Bommai was elected leader and became Chief Minister. In April 1989 a legislator defected and produced letters from nineteen others withdrawing confidence; the Governor reported to the President. Seven of the nineteen then wrote that their signatures had been obtained by misrepresentation and reaffirmed their support; the Cabinet decided to convene the Assembly on 27 April to seek a vote of confidence, and Bommai asked the Governor to let him prove his majority by a floor-test, offering to advance the date. The Governor sent a second report, and on 21 April 1989 the President, under Article 356, issued a Proclamation, dismissed the Bommai government and dissolved the Assembly. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition. The appeal was heard with other matters arising from the dismissal of the governments of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh after the events of December 1992, by a Bench of nine — Pandian, Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, Verma, Sawant, Ramaswamy, Agrawal, Yogeshwar Dayal and Jeevan Reddy JJ.

1. What is the nature of the Indian Constitution — is it federal, and what does its Preamble imply for Centre–State relations?
2. Is a Proclamation under Article 356 open to judicial review, and on what grounds?
3. Can a State government be dismissed for acting against secularism?

On the Preamble and the nature of the Union. Ahmadi J. opened from the text: "India, as the Preamble proclaims, is a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic." It promises liberty of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship, and equality of status and opportunity; what is paramount is the unity and integrity of the nation, and to maintain it the founding fathers "leaned in favour of a strong Centre" while distributing powers between the Centre and the States. In the people of India "vests the legal sovereignty while the political sovereignty is distributed between the Union and the States." The makers "did not deem it wise to shake the basic structure of Government" and largely followed the 1935 Act's pattern of distribution, moving some subjects of common interest to the Union List.

On federalism. The Court examined whether the Constitution is "truly federal". Dicey "calls it a political contrivance for a body of States which desire Union but not unity"; the essence of a federation "is the existence of the Union and the States and the distribution of powers between them." The Court rejected the view that India fails the test because residuary powers lie with Parliament: "the allocation of the residuary power of legislation to Parliament (i.e. the Federation) is irrelevant for determining the federal nature of a Constitution" — the American and Australian Constitutions place it with the States and are indisputably federal, and the subjects assigned to the States are far from unimportant. India is federal, with the Centre stronger than in the classic model.

On Article 356. The Court held that the President's satisfaction is not beyond review: the courts "can now take a more active part in preventing a mala fide or improper exercise of the power to impose a President's rule", unfettered by the American political-question doctrine. On the facts, the question of a ministry's majority is to be tested in the Assembly, and Bommai's offer of a floor-test should have been accepted; the Karnataka Proclamation could not be sustained.

On secularism. The compilations record the holding for which this case is most often cited in this unit: that "in matters of State, religion has no place", and that secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution — so that a State government which acts against it acts against the Constitution, and Article 356 may be invoked.

1. The Constitution is federal in character, with a deliberate tilt to a strong Centre; the location of the residuary power does not decide the question.
2. Secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution.
3. A Proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review for mala fides or irrelevant grounds, and a ministry's majority is to be tested on the floor of the House, not in the Governor's chamber.