Case Summary : S.R. Bommai V.Union Of India

CITATION- AIR 1994 SC 1918

DECIDED ON- 11.03.1994

BENCH- S.R. Pandian, A.M. Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, J.S. Verma, P.B. Sawant, K. Ramaswamy, S.C. Agrawal, Yogeshwar Dayal and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.

CASE INTRODUCTION-This case is considered to be a landmark judgement in the history of India. Till the judgement of the case As per the provision of Article 356 the presidential rule has been called upon up to 95 times in the country. So accordingly it clearly says that their was a need to resolve the problem which was arising in the sphere of the law and to grab the attention of the Judiciary.

We can say that in this case the Supreme Court had discussed all the issues which were associated with article 356 in detail. In this case a bench of 9 judges were there to hear the arguments on behalf of both the parties.


The Governor of Karnataka had received nineteen letters from the council of ministers stating that they are going to withdraw the support from the ruling party and due to the lack of majority support, Governor had forwarded a report to the president about the glance of Council Of Ministers from the party in ruling.

The Governor detailed in the statement that the present Chief Minister Mr. S.R. Bommai futile to call in majority for the majority of assembly and thus the president’s rule should be levied in the State under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India.

The very subsequent day of sending the report, seven out of the nineteen ministers grumbled about the falsification in their corresponding letters and Hence Mr. S.R. Bommai, the Chief Minister and the Law Minister visited to call the assemble same day in order to prove the Majority of his government in the assembly.

The report of the same was forwarded to the President But again on the same day, the President received another report from the Governor which states that Mr. S.R. Bommai, the then Chief Minister of Karnataka has lost his assurance of Majority and has requested the president to declare the emergency in the state under Article 356. On the basis of this report, the president announced the emergency.

A writ petition was filed stimulating the validity of the declaration in the special 3 judges bench of Karnataka High Court but it was dismissed and Thus he preferred this plea. The Similar interrogation of law arose in the case of Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himanchal Pradesh and hence all the petitions were heard conjointly by the 9 judges bench of Supreme Court.


  1. The Hon’ble court apprehended that the power of president to declare the emergency in a state i.e. the presidential rule is subject to some restrictions and it should be on the source of the report and opinion of governor and not in the sole approval.
  2. The Hon’ble court also held that the court owns the power to Judicial review of the declaration and id it is found to be deceptive, the court can trapped down the proclamation even if it has received the consensus of both the houses.
  3. The Hon’ble court censoriously examined three broad issues i.e. the nature of Federalism, Secularism and the proclamation being under the space of judicial review.
  4. The case of S.R. Bommai V. Union of India is no doubt a very big change in the Constitution of India but it has left out a lot of predicament and has not convincingly established the matter. Hon’ble judges has pronounced 6 different judgments and these is no single judgment which indicated the ratio of majority and minority in any part.
  5. This left many of the points in dilemma and there are many points like the authenticity of Sarkaria Commission’s report which left in between and no minority or majority has been made. At lease all the judgements distinct should have been complied in a single order indicating the majority and the minority.
One Comment