Live
- NASA Tracks Five Giant Asteroids on Close Approach to Earth Today
- Pushpa 2 Hits ₹1000 Crore in 6 Days: How It Compares to Other Top Indian Films
- Vivo X200 and X200 Pro Launched in India: Price, Specifications, and Features
- Nitin Gadkari Admits Feeling Embarrassed at Global Summits Over Rising Road Accidents in India
- Comprehensive Review on Indiramma Housing Survey and Welfare Initiatives Conducted via Video Conference
- Jogulamba Temple Records Rs 1.06 Crore Hundi Revenue in 150 Days
- Opposition Slams ‘One Nation, One Election’ Bill as Anti-Democratic; BJP Allies Support the Move
- Celebrate Karthigai Maha Deepam Virtually with Sri Mandir’s LIVE Darshan Experience
- BJP Extends Support to Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan Employees' Strike, Demands Immediate Regularization and Welfare Benefits
- Dr. M. Priyanka Stresses Quality Education, Nutritious Meals, and Cleanliness in Schools
The S R Bommai case
The Supreme Court judgement on May 11, 1994 in S R Bommai versus Union of India case put a check on the absolute powers of the President to dismiss a State government under the powers vested in him by the Article 356 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court judgement on May 11, 1994 in S R Bommai versus Union of India case put a check on the absolute powers of the President to dismiss a State government under the powers vested in him by the Article 356 of the Constitution. The SC decision related not to a proclamation of emergency under Article 353 (national emergency) but to a proclamation under Article 356 (failure of constitutional machinery in States).
When the then Congress government at the Centre dismissed the S R Bommai government in Karnataka in 1989, the latter challenged the dismissal in the High Court which held that Governor’s action cannot be found fault with. He approached the Supreme Court later, which held that a State government could be dismissed only under extenuating circumstances, and laid down guidelines for such a dismissal. It observed, " the Governor should have found out whether there was any possibility of a formation of a government before taking such a hasty decision. He should have waited at least two more months before making such a drastic recommendation.
A nine-judge bench set aside the Presidential proclamation under Section 356 (1) relating to Karnataka (April 21, 1989). The President can suspend the assembly, subject to approval by Parliament, within two months. Even so, the proclamations were subject to judicial review.
It was held that a Proclamation under Article 356(1) is open to judicial review on the ground of violating the basic structure of the Constitution. It follows that a proclamation under Article 356(1), which violates any of the basic features, as summarized in the Preamble of the Constitution is liable to be struck down as unconstitutional.
In all cases where the Ministry loses majority support, the Supreme Court said that the proper course for testing the strength of the Ministry was holding the Test on the floor of the House, except in case where the holding of the floor test was considered not possible. It was held that Article 74(2) did not bar the Court from calling upon the Union Council of Ministers to disclose the material upon which the President had formed the requisite satisfaction.
