## Facts

- Multiple petitions and appeals challenged presidential proclamations imposing President’s Rule under Article 356 in several Indian States (including Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh) between 1989–1992.
- In Karnataka, S.R. Bommai led a state government formed by a legislative majority.
- Several legislators submitted letters to the Governor withdrawing support from Bommai’s government.
- Bommai asserted he retained majority support and sought an opportunity to prove it in a floor test in the legislative assembly.
- The Governor did not facilitate a floor test and instead recommended President’s Rule.
- The President issued a proclamation dismissing the state government; the assembly was later dissolved.
- The disputes were referred to a nine-judge bench to clarify the constitutional limits on Article 356, including judicial review and the constitutional status of federalism and secularism.

## Issues

1. Whether a presidential proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, and on what grounds.
2. Whether the President’s “satisfaction” that constitutional governance has broken down in a State is non-justiciable.
3. Whether legislative majority must be determined by a floor test rather than the Governor’s assessment based on letters or interviews.
4. Whether dissolution of a state legislative assembly may occur before parliamentary approval required by Article 356(3).
5. Whether federalism and secularism limit the invocation of Article 356, including whether anti-secular conduct by a state government can justify President’s Rule.

## Decision

- The Court held that Article 356 proclamations are subject to judicial review on limited grounds, including absence of relevant material, reliance on irrelevant considerations, or bad faith.
- The Court held that if a proclamation is unconstitutional, courts may invalidate it and, where feasible, restore the dismissed government and revive the assembly.
- The Court held that doubts about a ministry’s majority must ordinarily be resolved by a floor test in the legislative assembly, not by the Governor’s subjective evaluation.
- The Court held that dissolution of the assembly should ordinarily not occur before parliamentary approval under Article 356(3); suspension is the typical interim course.
- The Court affirmed federalism and secularism as basic-structure features constraining Article 356; anti-secular governance may justify action, subject to constitutional checks.
- As applied to Karnataka, the Court concluded the dismissal without a floor test was unconstitutional, though practical reinstatement relief was limited because elections had intervened.

## Legal Principles

- Executive satisfaction under Article 356 is not immune from judicial review; courts may assess whether the satisfaction rested on relevant material and was free from bad faith and extraneous grounds.
- Legislative majority is primarily a question for the elected assembly and should be tested by a floor vote when contested.
- Article 356 is an exceptional power intended for genuine breakdown of constitutional governance, not for partisan or convenience-based replacement of elected state governments.
- Parliamentary approval under Article 356(3) functions as a constitutional check; premature dissolution can undermine that check and is generally disfavored.
- Federalism and secularism operate as basic-structure constraints on the use of emergency-type central powers; state action subverting secular constitutional commitments can constitute a basis for Article 356, subject to judicial and parliamentary control.
- An unconstitutional proclamation may be set aside with restorative remedies where the situation remains reversible.

## Conclusion

The decision established enforceable limits on President’s Rule by making Article 356 proclamations reviewable, requiring floor tests to resolve majority disputes, discouraging dissolution before parliamentary approval, and treating federalism and secularism as constitutional fundamentals that restrict central dismissal of elected state governments.


S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 2 S.C.R. 644 (India 1994)