Bommai judgment draws the line for democracy

Indian politics is no stranger to power struggles, party splits, and midterm shakeups. But when this starts affecting elected state governments, constitutional principles — and institutions — are tested. One of the most important cases to ever deal with this was SR Bommai vs. Union of India, 1994. A constitutional firewall against arbitrary dismissal of elected governments, it asa landmarkruling. ‘And yet, the 2022 Maharashtra crisis involving the Shiv Sena split showed how political machinations can strain even the strongest constitutional guardrails.

- Ashish Bharadwajis professor & dean of BITS Pilani’s Law School in Mumbai and Insiyah Vahan vaty is the author of The Fearless Judge. The views expressed are personal.

But first, what was the Bommai case? SR Bommai was the Chief Minister of Karnataka. His party had recently undergone a merger, leading to political instability. A few legislators were said to have withdrawn support. The governor quickly concluded that Bommai no longer enjoyed a majority and advised the President to dismiss the government. Crucially, Bommai was not allowed to prove his majority in the Assembly — there was no floor test. But this wasn't an isolated case. By then, Article 356 of the Constitution — which allows the Centre to dismiss a state government if it fails to function according to constitutional norms — had been used 95 times. Sometimes legitimately, but often as a political tool to unseat opposition governments.

The Babri Masjid demolition in 1992 caused serious political unrest, prompting the dismissal of four more state governments. Three states challenged the dismissals alongside Bommai. The stage was set for a nine-judge Supreme Court bench to hear these petitions together and draw red lines around the constitutional limitations of Article 356.