What was Bommai judgment on which SC relied on

Subject : Polity

Section: Federalism

Context: Bommai judgment

More about the news:

In the Bommai case, a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court provided an interpretation of Article 356 of the Constitution, defining the conditions for the proclamation of President’s rule.
Article 356 addresses situations “in case of failure of constitutional machinery in States” and outlines the process for imposing President’s rule.
The unanimous ruling affirmed the provision but established that the President’s decision would be subject to judicial review.
The Bommai case remains the established legal precedent for determining when and how President’s rule can be imposed.
It was referenced in recent cases challenging President’s rule in Uttarakhand (2016) and Arunachal Pradesh (2016), both of which were overturned by the Supreme Court.

What is the background of the case:

In 1989, the Congress government at the Centre dismissed the Janata Dal-led Karnataka government, led by Chief Minister SR Bommai, by imposing President’s rule.
The dismissal was based on alleged letters from 19 MLAs withdrawing their support. Karnataka Governor P Venkatasubbaiah recommended to the President to take over the state’s administration, citing the lack of majority support for Bommai and no other political party being in a position to form the government.
The move was controversial, and the Supreme Court later noted that the Governor did not ascertain Bommai’s view before making the report to the President.
Furthermore, seven out of the 19 legislators who allegedly withdrew support later reversed their stance, claiming their signatures were obtained through misrepresentation.
Bommai challenged the dismissal in the Karnataka High Court, which ruled against him.
The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court, leading to the formation of a nine-judge bench to address the matter.

What was the verdict:

The Supreme Court, in the Bommai case, unanimously ruled that the President’s proclamation of President’s rule can be subject to judicial review on grounds of illegality, malafide, extraneous considerations, abuse of power, or fraud.
The Court clarified that while the President’s subjective appraisal couldn’t be examined, the material relied upon for the decision could be reviewed.
The verdict also mandated Parliamentary approval for imposing President’s rule.
The President could only exercise this power after the proclamation was approved by both Houses of Parliament.
Until then, the President could only suspend the state legislature.
If Parliament didn’t approve the proclamationwithin two months, the dismissed government would automatically be revived.
The ruling established a clear boundary for center-state relationships, emphasizing that states were not mere appendages of the Center.
The Bommai judgment significantly reduced the imposition of President’s rule after scrutinizing the conduct of the Governor’s office, especially when dismissing state governments run by opposition parties.
From 1950 to 1994, President’s rule was imposed 100 times, averaging 2.5 times a year.
After Bommai, between 1995 and 2021, it was imposed only 29 times, a little over once a year.

What was the Kashmir reference

In the Kashmir case, a crucial question was whether Article 370 could be abrogated during the President’s rule in the state.
The Supreme Court, drawing on the Bommai ruling, affirmed the constitutionality of the President’s actions.
The Court referred to the Bommai judgment, emphasizing that actions taken by the President post-proclamation were subject to judicial review.
It highlighted the standards set by different judges in Bommai, particularly those of Justice PB Sawant (mala fide or palpably irrational exercise of power) and Justice Reddy (consideration of advisability and necessity by the President).

Key Highlights:

SR Bommai Case Background: Arising from the 1989 dismissal of Karnataka’s Janata Dal-led government, Governor Venkatasubbaiah recommended President’s rule, citing SR Bommai’s loss of majority.
Controversy Surrounding Governor’s Recommendation: The move sparked controversy as some MLAs retracted support, alleging misrepresentation in obtaining their signatures.
Supreme Court’s Verdict on President’s Proclamation: The Court unanimously ruled that the President’s proclamation is subject to judicial review, considering grounds such as illegality, malafide, and abuse of power.
Impact on President’s Rule Frequency: Post-SR Bommai, President’s rule decreased significantly, from an average of 2.5 times annually (1950-1994) to just over once a year (1995-2021).
Kashmir Reference in Article 370 Ruling: The central question during the Article 370 ruling was whether its abrogation during J&K’s President’s rule (since 2018) was permissible.
Supreme Court’s Reliance on SR Bommai: The Court validated the President’s actions in J&K by applying SR Bommai standards, as set by Justices PB Sawant and Jeevan Reddy, for testing the validity of executive orders.