sekarreporter1: S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1994 https://share.google/CWaFwUCJRbEcek5si [07/05, 21:56] Meta AI: S.R. Bommai vs Union of India | 1994 (3) SCC 1 Date: 11 March 1994 | 9-Judge Constitution Bench Lead Judgment: Justice P.B. Sawant for majority, with 5 concurring opinions

by Sekar Reporter · May 7, 2026

[07/05, 21:56] sekarreporter1: S.R. Bommai vs Union Of India on 11 March, 1994 https://share.google/CWaFwUCJRbEcek5si
[07/05, 21:56] Meta AI: *S.R. Bommai vs Union of India | 1994 (3) SCC 1*
*Date*: 11 March 1994 | *9-Judge Constitution Bench*
*Lead Judgment*: Justice P.B. Sawant for majority, with 5 concurring opinions

This is _the_ landmark case on *President’s Rule under Article 356* and *federalism*. Still binding law in 2026.

—

*1. Facts – Why the case started*
1. *1989*: S.R. Bommai’s Janata Dal Govt in *Karnataka* dismissed under Art 356. Reason: 19 MLAs withdrew support. Governor didn’t allow floor test, sent report saying no majority.
2. *Similar dismissals*: Between 1988-1989, Centre dismissed state govts in *Meghalaya, Nagaland, MP, HP, Rajasthan* on political grounds.
3. *Core question*: Can Centre use Art 356 to dismiss elected state govts just because ruling party at Centre lost confidence in CM?

*2. Supreme Court’s 9 key holdings*
**Issue** **SC Ruling**
**1. Judicial review of Art 356** Yes. President’s satisfaction *can be reviewed by courts*. If based on irrelevant/material, malafide, or no material, court can strike it down.
**2. Floor test is mandatory** Assembly is the only place to test majority. Governor *must* give CM chance to prove majority on floor. Can’t rely on Governor’s “subjective” assessment.
**3. Secularism = Basic Structure** If state govt acts against secularism, Art 356 can be used. But *mere allegations* not enough.
**4. Centre-State relations** Federalism is part of Basic Structure. Centre *cannot* dismiss state govts arbitrarily. Art 356 is *exceptional power*, not routine.
**5. Dissolution of Assembly** President can’t dissolve assembly till *Parliament approves proclamation*. If HC/SC later strikes down Art 356, dissolved assembly can be revived.
**6. Governor’s report** Not immune. Court can examine if Governor’s report had relevant material.
**7. Political bias** Mere fact that state ruling party lost Lok Sabha polls ≠ ground for Art 356.
**8. Burden of proof** Union must justify Art 356 when challenged. Material must be disclosed to court.
**9. Consequences** If Art 356 struck down, dismissed govt can be restored.
*3. What happened in Bommai’s case*
*Karnataka*: SC held dismissal _unconstitutional_. Bommai govt was already replaced by fresh elections, so couldn’t be restored. But principle laid down.

*Other states*: Dismissal of *Meghalaya, Nagaland* upheld – found material. *MP, HP, Rajasthan* dismissals struck down – no material.

*4. Why Bommai matters in 2026*
1. *TN Hung Assembly now*: Governor not inviting TVK, asking for 118 letters. _Bommai_ says _floor test is the only test_. Governor can’t do “pre-test” of majority.
2. *EC Act case you shared*: SC told Centre _“This is more important than Sabarimala”_. _Bommai_ logic = institutions like ECI are part of _Basic Structure_ protection.
3. *Governor’s role*: After Bommai, Governors can’t dismiss/invite govts on personal assessment. Must go by floor test. _Sarkaria + Punchhi Commissions_ codified this.

*5. Famous quotes from judgment*
1. _“Article 356 is an emergency provision… to be used as a last resort”_ – Justice Sawant
2. _“Federalism is a basic feature of Constitution”_ – Justice K. Ramaswamy
3. _“The assembly should be dissolved only after both Houses approve proclamation”_ – prevents fait accompli

*Bottom Line*: _Bommai_ clipped Centre’s wings. Before 1994, Art 356 used 90+ times. After Bommai, use dropped drastically. Made _floor test = Lakshman Rekha_ for Governors.

This case is why today’s TN Governor can’t deny TVK invite just on “suspicion”. If challenged, HC/SC will ask: _“Did you give floor test? No? Then illegal per Bommai.”_

Want the exact para numbers on _“floor test mandatory”_ or _“judicial review”_ for your legal drafting?