Leading Supreme Court judgment on Judicial review over power of President to impose state emergency under Article-356 of Indian constitution

 The power of the President of India to impose a state emergency under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution is indeed subject to judicial review, a principle established by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994). This case is pivotal in understanding the constitutional limitations on the President's power to impose President's Rule in a state, thereby rejecting the doctrine of political question.

Background of the Case

Article 356 allows the President to impose President's Rule in a state if the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor of the state or otherwise, is satisfied that the governance in the state cannot be carried out according to the provisions of the Constitution. This power has often been misused for political reasons, leading to its invocation in situations where it may not have been warranted.

The S.R. Bommai case arose from the dismissal of several state governments in 1989-1991 by the Central Government, invoking Article 356, on the grounds that they had lost their majority or were acting against the secular principles of the Constitution.

Key Issues

The central question in the S.R. Bommai case was whether the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, or whether it falls under the "political question" doctrine, which would place it beyond the scope of judicial scrutiny.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court, in a nine-judge bench decision, laid down several important principles regarding the invocation of Article 356:

1. Judicial Review is Permissible: The Court held that the President's power under Article 356 is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. This means that the courts have the authority to review whether the imposition of President's Rule was based on relevant and legitimate grounds. The Court categorically rejected the doctrine of political question, which would have rendered such decisions immune from judicial scrutiny.

2. Doctrine of Federalism and Secularism: The Court underscored that India is a federal state and that the use of Article 356 should respect this federal structure. It also highlighted that the principle of secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution, and the President’s Rule cannot be imposed simply because a state government is allegedly acting against secular principles unless there is clear evidence.

3. Limited Scope for Subjective Satisfaction: The Court emphasized that the President's satisfaction for invoking Article 356 is not purely subjective. It must be based on objective material that is relevant and sufficient to justify the imposition of President's Rule.

4. Reinstatement of Dismissed Governments: The Court ruled that if a proclamation under Article 356 is found to be unconstitutional, the dismissed state government must be reinstated, unless fresh elections have already been held.

5. Proclamation to be Laid Before Parliament: The Court reiterated that every proclamation under Article 356 must be approved by both houses of Parliament within two months, failing which it will cease to operate.

Impact of the Judgment

The S.R. Bommai case is a cornerstone in Indian constitutional law because it significantly curtailed the arbitrary use of Article 356 by ensuring that its invocation could be challenged in courts. It reinforced the idea that the power to impose President's Rule must be exercised cautiously, and not for political gains. This judgment helped in strengthening federalism in India and acted as a deterrent against the misuse of emergency powers.

By establishing that the imposition of President's Rule is justiciable, the Supreme Court ensured that the actions of the Executive under Article 356 are accountable and must adhere to constitutional principles. This decision has become a bulwark against the misuse of emergency powers in India.

Print Page