Explained | Role of 1994 SR Bommai case verdict during political crisis

The landmark verdict in the SR Bommai Vs Union of India case in 1994 has played an important role during any political crisis. Read on to know more about the verdict and its significance.

The historic judgment by the nine-judge Bench in SR Bommai Vs Union of India in March 1994 laid down the supremacy of the floor test in determining the support enjoyed by the party in power.Every time a political crisis has arisen, the ruling in the SR Bommai case has played a crucial role.India Today delves into the details of the verdict and how it has been cited by the aggrieved parties from time to time.WHAT IS THE SR BOMMAI CASE AND WHY IS IT SIGNIFICANT?In 1985, the Janata Party won the Assembly elections in Karnataka and formed the government under Chief Minister Ramakrishna Hegde. In 1988, Hegde was replaced by SR Bommai. Since there was a merger of the Janta party with Janata Dal, new members were inducted into Bommai’s ministry.

Also read: What's next in Maharashtra maha-dramaIn September 1988, KR Molakery, a legislator from the Janata Dal, defected from the party, and presented a letter to Governor P Venkatasubbaiah along with 19 other members of the Legislative Assembly, stating their decision to withdraw support from the Bommai government.The government at the Centre dismissed the state government using Article 356, without giving Bommai a chance to prove his majority and imposed President’s Rule.The ground of dismissal was that the government had lost its majority following large-scale defections orchestrated by several party leaders.Later, Governor P Venkatasubbaiah refused to give Bommai an opportunity to test his majority in the Assembly, despite the CM presenting him with a copy of the resolution passed by the Janata Dal Legislature Party.Bommai did not get any relief from the high court and then he moved the Supreme Court. The Apex Court, through its judgment, put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of state governments under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions.WHAT DID THE JUDGEMENT SAY?The nine-judge Bench in the Bommai case adjudicated on a range of issues around the constitutional limitations of the use of Article 356.The court laid down a number of guidelines to curb the Centre’s capacity to dismiss a state government and upheld the federal structure enshrined in the Constitution.The ruling laid down the law that the only way to determine support enjoyed by a particular state government would be by means of a floor test.Also, the court ruled that the validity of a proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.The court said that the only time the President shall have unconditional powers to dissolve a state government is when there is a complete breakdown of constitutional machinery.The verdict also introduced the concept of floor tests. While referring to Article 164 (2) which mandates that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the State, the bench interpreted that the ultimate test of majority is not held in the Raj Bhavan but on the floor of the House."If only one keeps in mind the democratic principle underlying the Constitution and the fact that it is the Legislative Assembly that represents the will of the people and not the Governor, the position would be clear beyond any doubt,” the Bommai judgment had stated.