The S.R. Bommai Judgment: Federalism, Secularism, and the Limits of Executive Power

In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court delivered a crucial verdict that curtailed the misuse of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. The provision allows the president to dismiss a state government and impose President’s Rule, a power that was being increasingly politicised during the 1980s and early 1990s.

The case stemmed from the dismissal of the Karnataka state government led by S.R. Bommai, ostensibly on the grounds of losing majority support. Bommai contested the decision, asserting that the majority should have been tested on the floor of the House. The court ruled in his favour and established that such dismissals must be subject to judicial review and majority claims must be verified in the assembly.

Importantly, the judgement also reinforced secularism as a basic feature of the Constitution. The court stated that a state government pursuing anti-secular policies could be lawfully dismissed. This interpretation added a significant moral dimension to the enforcement of constitutional values.

For Mullick & Co., this judgement exemplifies the judiciary’s role in maintaining federal balance and protecting democratic norms. It serves as a reminder that constitutional powers must not be wielded arbitrarily but in service of governance and public trust.