S.R. Bommai Vs Union of India

Petitioner- S.R Bommai

Defendant- Union of India

1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1

11 March, 1994

Statutes Referred-

The Constitution of India

The administrative law

Cases Referred-

State of Rajasthan Vs Union of India 1977 AIR 1361, 1978 SCR (1) 1

Union of India Vs H.S Dhillon 1972 AIR 1061, 1972 SCR (2) 33

Facts of the Cases

1. The suit was filed by the petitioner named Bommai in the apex court called supreme court of India challenging the high court decision. Beside this, supreme court has also called upon by the central government to decide the validity of five other proclamations in the states like- Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan.

Issue raised

1. Whether the president rule imposed in these six state? And will it be constitutionally valid?
2. Whether the president has powered to issue proclamation under Article 356(1) of the constitution.
3. Is proclamation amendable to judicial review?

Parties Contention

Petitioner’s

1. Bommai has given the opportunity to prove his majority.
2. Imposition of the president’s rule in the 6 states was totally mala fide, it has not proven any satisfaction and was totally a political act or stunt.
3. The union government has also not shared the grounds on which the president has taken the decision and with that Article 74(2) was also argued.

Respondant’s

1. The nature and scope of constitutional and administrative law is different, so if the powers are trusted to constitutional authorities only, the concerned authority will guise the said purpose and in that case, such power use will be questioned.
2. Article 74(1) and Article 356(1) of the Indian Constitution will be challenged and will surpassed for further enquiry, which can also lead to issuance of the proclaimation of the decision and will stand barred for a specific period of time.

Judgement

1. In a country like India, where the country is based on diversity, and different religious, castes and creeds matter a lot. So that only in rarest of the rare case, article 356 of the constitution should be invoked by now.
2. The proclamation of article 356 should be dependant on the satisfaction of the president with regard of all the current situations.
3. The proclamation should extent the limitations of the judicial review that should be issued.
4. It was also stated that the exercise of article 356(1) be done with the advice of council of ministers under article 74(1) of the constitution.
5. So the court further found that the allegation of mala fide intention is totally irrelevant. So the court has strike down the allegation under the clause (5) of 38^th amendment and 44^th amendment act, so the union of India has to produce the material facts of the decision on that grounds.
6. So the court has taken decision that the different states has different judicials and should emphasize differently on the basis if the constitution allows the proclamation and on it.

Rule of Law

The basic rule of law that was mentioned here was that the judicial reviews must be reviewed and proclaimed as per the diversity.

Conclusion

To conclude the above case, the court has taken the appropriate decision stating that the proclamation should based on the basis of different jurisdictions with effect of that the prima facie should not be invoked that to with mala fide intentions which has to be proven.

By Krishna Das