S. R. Bommai v. UOI summary

S. R. BOMMAI Vs. UOI

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

11 March 1994 

Facts of the case :

S. R. Bommai was the Chief Minister of Karnataka from 1988 to 1989. He belonged to the party Janta Dal. In 1989 his government was dismissed under Article 356 of the constitution and subsequently the president rule was imposed in the state. The ground for the failure of the state machinery and dismissal of the government was stated as lost of majority of ruling party following the large scale defection of its legislatures. 
S. R. Bommai demanded for the permission to conduct the floor test before the imposition of emergency under Article 356 so that the majority can be proven in the house, but unfortunately the demand was turned down by the governor. Thus S. R. Bommai - petitioner took the matter to the Supreme Court.

JUDGEMENT

The nine judge Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court of India listened the matter for 5 years and passed the landmark judgement. The court opined that the power of the President of India to dismiss a government is not absolute as it endangered the federal structure of the constitution which is the basic structure of the constitution. The court emphasised that the President can excercise the power rested under article 356 of the constitution only  after the proclamation got approved from both the houses of the parliament, i.e. Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. In the mean time the president can only suspend the government but can not dissolve it. If the proclamation does not approve from both the houses within two months , the suspended government will be reinstalled. The honourable court also emphasised that the floor test should also be conducted in the assembly as the test of the majority. The court also concluded that the President rule is also subjected to the judicial review by the court.
Justice Ahmadi while opined about the federalism noted that the Indian constitution not only have the features of pragmatic federalism but is also overlaid by strong unitary features.

IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE :

  1. It put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of the state government by the hostile central government, thus protecting the very federal structure of the constitution which is the basic structure of the constitution.
  2. S. R. Bommai case is largely referred in the cases of hung assembly.
  3. It provides the protection and the sense of confidence to the Chief Ministers if the state that their tenure is safe and will not be turned down arbitrary. 



YOU MAY ALSO LIKE 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Kailash Wati V. Ajodhia Parkash case summary

Image
KAILASH WATI Vs. AJODHIA PARKASH PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT  19 NOV 1976 CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. Question before the court Whether the hindu marriage act sanctify or recognise (what may be called as) week end marriage as of a right at the unilateral desire of the wife. Facts of the case The appellant smt. Kailash Wati was married to the respondent Ajodhia Parkash in June 1964. Both of them before marriage were posted as village level teachers. Wife at her parental village of Bilga and husband at kot Ise Khan. After marriage the wife was transferred to her husband's station and they lived together in the matrimonial home for 8-9 months. Contention of the parties Husband : The allegation of the husband is that the wife has got herself transferred back to her parental village and ever since has been residing there with her parents against his wish. Therefore he filled an application for the restitution of conjugal rights under section 9 of HINDU MARRIAGE ACT. 
Read more

Savitri Pandey V. Prem Chandra Pandey summary

Image
SAVITRI PANDEY Vs. PREM CHANDRA PANDEY SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  2002 CASE FOR SECTION 13 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT ON THE GROUNDS OF CRUELTY AND DESERTION Facts of the case :  The appellant - wife approached the court for the dissolution of marriage under section 13 of HMA alleging cruelty and desertion against the husband.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner : Petitioner plead for the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion by the husband. Respondent  : Respondent - husband argued that no acts of cruelty were performed to the wife and the petitioner is trying to take advantage of her own wrong.  JUDGEMENT :  The trial court passed the decree in favour of the wife. The court observed that although nothing can establish cruelty against husband, desertion by husband provides sufficient grounds for dissolution of marriage.    High court opined that there was nothing to prove cruelty as against husband and further there was also nothing to prove the desertion by th
Read more

Swaraj Garg V. K. M. Garg summary

Image
SWARAJ GARG  Vs. K.M. GARG DELHI HIGH COURT MARCH 7, 1978 . CASE UNDER SECTION 9 OF HINDU MARRIAGE ACT Question before the court : Where will be the matrimonial home located after the marriage when both the parties are gainfully employed and there does not exist any agreement either implied or written before the marriage.  Facts of the case : The wife Swaraj - petitioner lived in her village, Sunam, from 1956 and techer at the the school. She was the head mistress at government high school in 1969. She got married to the respondent in 1964. The husband was not having a satisfactory job and earn only 500 p/m in Delhi where he resides. She came to live with her husband for some time and then grt back to her village and continue living there. The Husband therefore filed the petition under section 9 of Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights.  Contention of the parties :  Petitioner  : The petitioner argued that respondent's condition is not satisfactory that he can maint
Read more