August 29, 2025

Setting the scene

There were long debates on whether emergency powers could lead to weakening the federal system of the country by the makers of the Constitution of India. One such provision was Article 356, which talks about imposition of the President rule in state. This article was controversial from the start. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Dr B.R. Ambedkar had clearly stated that this provision should be used only in the rarest of the rare cases.

The landmark judgement of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) became a defining moment in how to understand and interpret Article 356. S.R. Bommai, the then Chief Minister of Karnataka was forced to resign due to political instability and the President Rule was imposed. This sparked a vital debate on the limits of the power of the President and the court’s role in reviewing these cases.

Most people remember the National Emergency of 1975 declared by Indira Gandhi. But what many don’t realize is that emergencies in the states under Article 356 used to be far more common, often for political reasons. This changed after the Bommai judgment, when the Supreme Court laid down strict rules for using Article 356 and made it clear that the provision could not be abused.

Since then, President’s Rule has been imposed much less often. A large part of the credit goes to the Supreme Court judges who delivered the Bommai decision three decades ago.

President’s rule

The landmark S.R Bommai case emerged during the time when Article 356 was used the most. This happened sometimes in an unfair manner to dismiss the State Government too. Article 356 gives the President the power to impose President’s Rule in a state if its government cannot function according to the Constitution. This power was used more than 90 times between 1950 to 1994 often for political reasons. This misuse was dealt directly in the S.R Bommai case, especially the frequent dismissal of State Governments in the 1980s and early 1990s.

Historical use of President’s rule in India

The President’s rule has been imposed 134 times since the Constitution came into effect.

Manipur – 10 times
Uttar Pradesh – 10 times
Jammu & Kashmir – over 12 years in total
Punjab – more than 10 years in total
Puducherry – over 7 years in total

Constitutional provisions related to President’s rule

Article 355 of the Indian Constitution

Article 355 states that it is the duty of the Union to protect the state from internal problems and external aggression.

Article 356 of the Indian Constitution

Article 356 allows the President to take control when the State Government cannot function under the Constitution. The official title of this article is “Provisions in Case of Failure of Constitutional Machinery in States”. Though it doesn’t use the exact phrase “failure of constitutional machinery,” it allows the President to act when a State Government cannot run according to the Constitution.

A proclamation can be issued by the President on the basis of the report of the Governor or any other sources where it is believed that the State Government cannot function. The President can:

Take over the executive power can assume the role of Governor and other state authorities but not the legislature.
The Parliament can be given the power to make new laws for the state.
The President can suspend certain constitutional provisions related to state bodies, if needed, to restore order.

However, there are some limitations to these powers as well. The power of the High Court cannot be taken over. The President can also not suspend any constitutional provisions which are related to the High Court. This article lets the Center step in during the crisis to ensure that the Indian Constitution is being followed. However, this power has to be used with utmost care and not as a political tool.

Article 357 of the Indian Constitution

Article 357 gives the President the power to make laws for the state if there is a need.

Article 365 of the Indian Constitution

Under Article 365 the consequences are laid down in case the State Government fails to follow the directions given by the Union.

S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994)

Brief details of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994)

Name of the Case	S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India
Parties of the Case	Petitioner – S.R. BommaiRespondent – Union of India
Equivalent Citations	1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1
Court	Supreme Court of India
Statutes, Provisions, Judgements Involved In the Case	Article 356 of Constitution
Bench	Justice Kuldip Singh, Justice P.B. Sawant, Justice K. Ramaswamy, Justice S.C. Agrawal, Justice Yogeshwar Dayal, Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy, Justice S.R. Pandian and Justice A.M. Ahmadi
Judgement Date	11/03/1994

Facts of the case

The Chief Minister of Karnataka, S.R. Bommai led a Janata Dal government from August 1988 to April 1989. The government was dismissed on 21 of April in 1989, the reason being the imposition of the President Rule. It was very common during that time to dismiss the state governments which are led by the opposition parties by the central government.

S.R. Bommai’s government was removed due to defections that were politically motivated even though his party claimed to have a majority. The Governor did not allow him to prove his majority in the assembly. He then approached the Karnataka HIgh Court, however his plea was rejected. He then approached the Supreme Court. A nine-judge bench was assigned to hear this case. This case became important because it addressed the misuse of Article 356 and protected the federal structure of India.

Legal provisions involved in the case

Following were the legal provisions involved in this case:

Article 74(1) of Constitution of India

This article states that the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers help and advise the President, who must act according to their advice.

Article 74(2) of Constitution of India

Under this article the courts cannot question the advice given by the Council of Ministers to the President.

Article 356 of Constitution of India

The President can take over a state’s administration if it is believed that the state government cannot function according to the Constitution.

Section 123 of Indian Evidence Act 1872

No one can use unpublished government records as evidence. Officials can access them but may refuse permission if needed as per this Section.

Section 123(3) of Representation of the People Act 1951

Using religion, race, caste, community, or language to influence voters is considered a corrupt election practice as per this Section.

Issues raised in the S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994)

Whether the imposition of the President was constitutionally valid in the 6 states?
Whether the courts check or question the President’s decision to impose President’s Rule? If yes, how much can they interfere and what exactly can they review?
Were the actions of the central government or the President driven by political motives or bad intentions rather than legal reasons?
What does it mean when the President says a state government cannot run properly according to the Constitution?

Contention by the parties in S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994)

Contention made by the petitioner

The petitioner argued that the Governor had acted arbitrarily and the petitioner was not given a chance to be heard and prove his majority in the assembly. The recommendations which were made by the Government were not based on verified information and provided no justification on the imposition of the President Rule.

The decision of the President was influenced by politics, trying to give more power to the central government and weaken state governments led by opposition parties. It was further argued that removing state governments without proper reason goes against the Constitution’s principle of sharing power between the central and state governments.

Contention made by the respondent

In the S.R. Bommai case, the Union of India argued that the President’s decision to impose President’s Rule under Article 356 is based on the President’s personal satisfaction and cannot be questioned by the courts. They contended that if a state government engages in activities that violate the secular principles of the Constitution, it justifies dismissal under Article 356. Furthermore, they maintained that courts do not have the authority to examine whether the information or advice provided to the President was sufficient or accurate.

Judgement of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994)

The Supreme Court of India passed the landmark judgement under this case making sure that the central government does not dismiss the state governments arbitrarily using Article 356. The court states that the President does not hold unlimited power when it comes to removing the state government. This power can only be used after both the Houses of Parliament give an approval for the proclamation of the President’s rule. Until the approval is given, the State’s Legislative Assembly can only be suspended by the President. This means that the assembly’s powers are paused temporarily, however they are not completely dissolved.

The Apex Court gave some guidelines to use Article 356 under this case.

The court said that a floor test will be considered the best possible way to check if a party really has support to stay in power or not.
It was also stated that Article 356 can be used only if the constitutional machinery in a state breaks down, not just because of administrative or management problems.
Following the Sarkaria Commission report, the court explained when the use of Article 356 is proper or improper.
It held that it is proper when a state government ignores directions from the central government under Article 365.
But improper if the state government is not given a prior warning to rectify issues, except in cases of urgent situations causing serious problems.
The court also emphasized that secularism, democracy, and federalism are core features of the Constitution that cannot be violated, and clarified that secularism means actively treating all religions equally, not merely showing tolerance.

Key judicial observations on secularism S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994)

The S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994) judgment is remembered not only for limiting the misuse of Article 356 (President’s Rule) but also for its strong stand on secularism in Indian politics. Delivered by a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in March 1994, the ruling declared that mixing religion with politics is a direct violation of the Constitution.

India is a secular state, not a religious one

The Constitution gives every person the right to practice their religion (Articles 25–30).
At the same time, it makes sure the State treats all religions equally.
The government cannot favour or follow any one religion.
Articles like 14, 15, 16, 29, 30, 44, and 51 protect equality, cultural rights, and promote harmony among people.

Religion and politics must stay separate

The Court has said that asking for votes in the name of religion is a corrupt practice under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Sections 123(3) & 123(3A)).
Religion is a personal matter, but it should not be mixed with politics.

No religious appeals during elections

Political parties cannot use religion to ask for votes.
A secular approach is necessary to protect democracy and maintain peace in society.

Government cannot support any religion

The Constitution does not allow the State to promote or patronise any religion directly or indirectly.
Political parties that seek votes on the basis of religion or caste divide people, which goes against the spirit of the Constitution.

Keep religion out of politics

Neither parties, groups, nor individuals should bring religion or caste into politics.
Religious speeches during campaigns “pollute politics” and go against constitutional values.

Party manifestos must respect secularism

A political party’s manifesto must also follow secular and constitutional principles.
Parties registered under Section 29-A of the RPA must respect the Constitution and cannot attack its basic structure.

Secularism binds political parties

Using religion to gain political power is unconstitutional.
Secularism, fraternity, and religious tolerance are part of the Constitution’s basic structure and are necessary for national unity.

The Bommai case reaffirmed that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution. It mandated that religion and politics must remain separate, and political parties, governments, or individuals cannot seek power by exploiting religious or caste identities.

In essence, the judgment declared:

No religion in politics, and no politics in religion.
Secularism is not just a principle it is a constitutional obligation for all political actors.

Key takeaways

In Indian constitutional history, the S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) case continues to be a pivotal ruling. It made it untenable for the President to dissolve State governments at will and clearly limited the unjust use of Article 356. The Supreme Court stressed that the President’s Rule can only be enforced in cases where constitutional machinery fails, not for administrative reasons, and that a floor test is the appropriate method of determining a government’s majority.

The ruling also reaffirmed the fundamental tenets of federalism, democracy, and secularism, emphasizing the need to keep politics and religion apart. All things considered, Bommai fortified India’s federal system and shielded the Constitution against political abuse.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Is Article 356 under judicial review?

The landmark case of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India made clear that Article 356 is subject to judicial review.

When was the first use of Article 356 done?

It was first used in Punjab on 20 June 1951, then in PEPSU in 1953, and in Kerala in 1959 to dismiss the Communist government after anti-communist protests.