top of page

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

Petitioner : S.R. Bommai

Respondent : Union of India

Date of Judgment : 11 March 1994 (Supreme Court of India)

Bench : A.M. Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, J.S. Verma, P.B. Sawant, K. Ramaswamy, S.C. Agarwal, Yogeshwar Dayal, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, S.R. Pandian.


In 1989, the government of Janatadal was overthrown by Shri S. Bonmai in the Karnataka office has launched a campaign for many members to leave the party and seek majority support in the House of Representatives for the government. The prime minister proposed that the governor convene a parliament to consider the power of the government in the field. The President's reparations under Rule 356, Paragraph 1, which may be a prerequisite for the difficulty of decree, must be true and true satisfaction, backed by relevant facts and circumstances. The court can consider whether the proclamation upheld vulgar satisfaction for some reason, or whether it upheld a completely irrelevant and irrelevant reason.

In such circumstances, the satisfaction declared by the President is not the satisfaction in the sense of Article 356 of the Constitution. However, in the end, the court dismissed the motion because the facts contained in the governor's report were not considered irrelevant, and asked the governor because his satisfaction was based on all reasonable assessments.


The Janata Party is the largest party in the Karnataka State Legislature to form a government led by S. He sent a telex to the president with the same effect. However, on the same day, the governor sent another report to the president in 20-4-1989. This began with the Prime Minister losing confidence in the majority of the House of Representatives and repeating previous calls for action under Rule 356. On the same day, the president declared the above merits. The proclamation was subsequently approved by Parliament under Article 356.

On October 11, 1991, the President declared that Article 356 would dissolve the Mexican government and the legislature. The proclamation stated that the president was satisfied based on government reports and other information that the situation arose when the country did not comply with the provisions of the Constitution. The government overthrowed and Congress dissolved accordingly. On August 7, 1988, based on the Governor's report, the President declared the Nagaland government, dismissed it, and terminated parliament.

Banks differ in function and function of Article 74 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this issue was referred to a third judge. The central government, led by Shri P, has dismissed the BJP governments of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. As a result, on December 15, 1992, the President declared Article 356, overtaking the state government and abolishing the legislative assembly of Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan. The Madhya Pradesh Supreme Court granted the request, but the written appeals relating to Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh were withdrawn and appealed to the Supreme Court.


Are the presidential rules imposed on the six states constitutionally valid?

Whether the President has released the rules for promulgating Article 356 (1) of the Constitution of India. The answer to this question depends on the answer to the next question.

If so, what is the scope of judicial review in this regard?

What does the phrase "a situation has arisen in which the government of a country cannot continue under the provisions of this Constitution" used in Article 356 (1)?



The Bonmai was not allowed to prove that he had reached the legal age. Article 74 argues that the Indian Union cannot exempt this obligation.


Increasingly analysis is unconstitutional or overly unconstitutional. One of the definitions of this controversy is that the court cannot consider whether the preconditions are met, regardless of whether the Constitution provides preconditions for the exercise of authority by the Constitutional Authority. Second, if the Constitutional Authority is empowered to achieve a particular purpose and the competent authority uses the power to achieve an inappropriate purpose in the guise of achieving that purpose, that authority Exercise is not questioned. It is alleged that the President may issue a proclamation under Article 356 and initiate an investigation only after the Cabinet has expressed its opinion in accordance with Article 74 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the Indian Union.

Paragraph 2 of this article also prohibits legal analysis of the reasons that led to the publication of the statement.


Article 356 confers notable energy at the President. This energy ought to be utilised sparingly and with first rate caution. Dr. Ambedkar in Article 356. The courtroom docket additionally permitted the proposals of the Sarkaria Commission concerning the usage of Article 356.

The Commission advised that earlier than invoking Article 356 observed on positive situations, it need to accept to the State. Though Article 356 does now no longer expressly cope with the dissolution of the Legislature, such powers are implied in Article 356 . Article 174 permits the Governor to adjourn the Legislative Assembly and the President and below Article 356 you delegate your powers and obligations to each the Government and the Governor. He dissolved the Legislative Assembly as a part of the statement issued below Article 356 or with the aid of using the subsequent order.

The courtroom docket that coordinated the energy to dissolve the legislature stated so Article 356 wishes the proclamation to be laid earlier than each the homes of parliament. The President has the energy to refuse the Legislature below Article 356 earlier than the consent of the statement with the aid of using the Parliament. Clause of Article 356 is taken into consideration to be a law of the powers of the President and now no longer the issuance of a Declaration, which can be received with the aid of using the State Government and the Council of State. It turned into assumed that the powers of the President below Article 356 of the Indian Constitution is a constitutional energy and now no longer absolute energy.

The maximum current instance of The imposition of Article 356 turned into the creation of a Presidential decree withinside the State of Uttar Pradesh in 1996.

This article is written by Shreyansh Prakash of Symbiosis Law School, Pune.

Recent Posts

See All


1989 AIR 2039, 1989 SCR (3) 997 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH OZA, G.L. (J) PETITIONER: Parmanand Katara, Human Rights Activist RESPONDENT: Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Indian Medical Council, India


Post: Blog2 Post
Anchor 1
bottom of page