S.R. Bommai v. Union of India: the nine-judge Bench on Article 356, judicial review, and secularism as basic structure

The Supreme Court's judgment of 11 March 1994 in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India — reported as (1994) 3 SCC 1 — is among the most consequential federalism rulings in the Republic's history. A nine-judge Constitution Bench of Justices S.R. Pandian, A.M. Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, J.S. Verma, P.B. Sawant, K. Ramaswamy, S.C. Agrawal, Yogeshwar Dayal and B.P. Jeevan Reddy delivered a set of holdings that, taken together, transformed the constitutional architecture for the imposition of President's Rule on the States.

The judgment is doctrinally consequential on four connected propositions. The first is that the President's proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review — not on the merits of the political assessment, but on the constitutional grounds of mala fides, perversity, and adequacy of material. The second is that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and operates as a constraint on the conduct of State Governments. The third is that the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly cannot precede Parliament's approval of the proclamation. The fourth is that the constitutional consequences of an unconstitutional proclamation include, in appropriate cases, the restoration of the dismissed State Government.

The constitutional architecture

Article 356 of the Constitution authorises the President to issue a proclamation imposing President's Rule on a State where he is satisfied — on the report of the Governor or otherwise — that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The proclamation has substantial consequences: the Governor assumes the functions of the State Government and the powers of the State Legislature are exercisable by Parliament.

The Article had, in the years before Bommai, been used repeatedly to dismiss State Governments — sometimes in circumstances where the constitutional case for the dismissal had been substantially contested. The Sarkaria Commission Report (1988) had earlier articulated a set of guidelines for the proper use of Article 356, but the guidelines had not been treated as constitutionally binding.

The constitutional question that Bommai posed was the substantive frame within which Article 356 operates. Was the President's satisfaction beyond judicial review? Were there substantive constitutional constraints on when the Article could be invoked? What was the consequence of an unconstitutional proclamation?

The context

The petition came to the Supreme Court as a batch of appeals from State High Court rulings on proclamations issued against the Governments of Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh — across the period from 1989 to 1993. The proclamations included those issued in the immediate aftermath of the demolition of the Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992 — which had produced the dismissals of the BJP-led Governments in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh.

The grounds for the proclamations engaged with different fact patterns. Some had been issued on grounds of loss of majority following defections. Others had been issued on grounds of the State Government's conduct in relation to communal events. The Bench had, in the consolidated proceedings, the opportunity to engage with the doctrinal architecture of Article 356 across this range of fact patterns.

The holdings

The judgment was delivered through multiple opinions across the nine judges. The principal holdings, taken across the opinions, are the following.

On judicial review of Article 356. The Bench held that the President's proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. The scope of the review is limited — it does not extend to the merits of the political assessment that the constitutional machinery has broken down. But the Court is competent to engage with the questions of whether the proclamation is mala fide, whether it is based on extraneous considerations, and whether the material before the President was such that a reasonable person could have arrived at the satisfaction that Article 356 contemplates. The position that the President's satisfaction is wholly beyond judicial scrutiny was rejected.

On secularism as basic structure. The Bench held that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The State has a constitutional obligation to be secular — to treat all religions equally and to refrain from preferring or disfavouring any. A State Government whose conduct violates the secular character of the Constitution acts unconstitutionally; the constitutional consequences of such conduct include, in appropriate cases, the use of Article 356 against the State Government on the ground that its government cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

The proposition that secularism includes the active equal treatment of religions — and not merely the absence of State preference — was an important doctrinal contribution. The Court read the Constitution's secular character as a positive obligation rather than as a negative restraint.

On the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. The Bench held that the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly under Article 356 cannot operate before Parliament approves the proclamation. The architecture of Article 356 — which requires parliamentary approval of the proclamation within two months — operates as a constitutional constraint on the consequences of the proclamation in the interim. The Legislative Assembly may be suspended; it cannot be dissolved until Parliament has approved.

The proposition was operationally important. The dissolution of the Legislative Assembly had been treated, in some prior practice, as an immediate consequence of the proclamation. Bommai established that the dissolution required parliamentary sanction, with the consequence that an unconstitutional proclamation could be set aside before dissolution had become final.

On the consequence of unconstitutional proclamation. The Bench held that where a proclamation under Article 356 is found to be unconstitutional, the Court has the power to restore the dismissed State Government. The remedy — restoring the constitutional position that had been displaced by the unconstitutional proclamation — is available to the Court.

The proposition is doctrinally significant. The consequence of judicial review is not confined to the prospective question of whether the proclamation continues to operate; it extends to the retrospective restoration of the constitutional position that the unconstitutional proclamation had displaced.

The Sarkaria framework as doctrinal scaffolding

The Bench engaged closely with the Sarkaria Commission Report (1988), which had articulated a set of guidelines for the use of Article 356. The Court did not adopt the Sarkaria framework as constitutionally binding in itself; the Court did, however, draw on the substantive content of the framework in articulating the constitutional architecture.

The Sarkaria positions that have, through Bommai, acquired doctrinal weight include: that loss of majority should be tested on the floor of the House before the resort to Article 356; that the use of Article 356 should be confined to situations where the constitutional machinery has broken down; and that the Article should not be used as an instrument of partisan political advantage.

The architecture has, in the years since Bommai, become the working framework for the use of Article 356. The number of proclamations under the Article has substantially declined, and the institutional practice has internalised the doctrinal frame the judgment articulated.

The doctrinal arc

Bommai sits in a substantial constitutional line on federalism and on the basic structure doctrine.

The line includes Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) — which had articulated the basic structure doctrine and produced the constitutional architecture within which Bommai's identification of secularism as basic structure operates. It includes Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) — which had applied the basic structure doctrine in the context of the Thirty-ninth Amendment. It includes Minerva Mills v. Union of India (1980) — which had read the basic structure doctrine in the context of the relationship between Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles.

The federalism aspect of the line includes the State of West Bengal v. Union of India (1963) line on the Union-State relationship and the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 engagements. The post-Bommai line includes the substantial body of decisions on the use of Article 356 — and on the broader architecture of cooperative federalism — that has been developed in the three decades since.

The most recent significant entry in the federalism line is In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution (2023) — the unanimous Constitution Bench ruling on the J&K abrogation — which operates within the doctrinal architecture Bommai established.

What practitioners take from the judgment today

For constitutional litigators engaged with federalism matters, Bommai is the foundational authority. The doctrinal architecture for the use of Article 356 — the judicial review frame, the secularism as basic structure proposition, the dissolution constraint, and the restoration remedy — operates as the working frame for constitutional engagement with the Union-State relationship.

For the broader constitutional bar, the judgment is the principal articulation of secularism as a constitutional value with positive content. The doctrinal frame — that secularism includes active equal treatment of religions rather than merely the absence of State preference — applies across the constitutional engagement with religion-State matters.

For the political branches, the judgment supplies the constitutional discipline within which Article 356 must be used. The reluctance to invoke the Article that has been the institutional practice since the mid-1990s is, on the most defensible reading, a consequence of the doctrinal frame Bommai established.

What the judgment did not decide

Three limits should be flagged.

First, the judgment does not articulate exhaustive standards for the use of Article 356. The doctrinal frame supplies the limits — judicial review on mala fides and perversity grounds, secularism as a constraint — but the application to specific fact patterns has continued to engage the institutional discretion within those limits.

Second, the judgment does not engage with the architecture of the President's discretion under Article 74 in the broader sense. The aid-and-advice frame under Article 74 operates across the constitutional architecture; the Bommai engagement is specific to Article 356.

Third, the judgment does not address the questions on Article 365 — the related provision on State non-compliance with directives of the Union — in the same detail. The doctrinal frame for Article 356 supplies the principal analytic apparatus for the related provisions, but the engagement with each requires its own substantive engagement.

Related editorial pieces

• Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala: the basic structure doctrine
• ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla: Emergency habeas corpus and the Khanna dissent
• In Re: Article 370 of the Constitution: the unanimous upholding of the J&K abrogation
• Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India (2023): the Constitution Bench on control over services
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: the rebuilding of Article 21