What did the Court say about dissolving a State Assembly under Article 356?

The President cannot dissolve the Assembly before Parliament approves the Proclamation under Article 356(3). Until then, only suspension is allowed.

Is the President’s Proclamation under Article 356 open to judicial review?

Yes. Courts can check if relevant material existed, if there was mala fide, or if the power was used for an improper purpose.

What guidance did the Sarkaria Commission give on Article 356?

Use Article 356 only as a last resort after other remedies fail. The Court broadly endorsed this approach.

What does 'breakdown of constitutional machinery' mean in simple words?

A real situation where the State Government cannot function according to the Constitution and normal remedies will not work.

What reliefs were granted in the Bommai case?

The Court struck down some Proclamations (e.g., Karnataka, Meghalaya), restored dismissed governments, and issued directions for other States.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India

Article 356 • President’s Rule • Judicial Review

Supreme Court of India Published: 25 Oct 2025 Author: Gulzar Hashmi India Citation: Civil Appeal No. 3645 of 1989 ~8 min read

Constitutional Law Federalism Emergency Provisions

Quick Summary

This case explains how and when the Union can use Article 356 to impose President’s Rule in a State, and how courts can review that action.

President cannot immediately dissolve the State Assembly. Dissolution needs Parliament’s approval under Article 356(3).
Courts can check if there was relevant material, if the action was bona fide, and if the power was used for the right purpose.
Sarkaria Commission view accepted: use Article 356 as a last resort.

```

Issues

Is judicial review possible of a President’s Proclamation under Article 356?
If yes, what is the scope of judicial review here?
What does the phrase mean in Article 356(1): “A situation has arisen where the State Government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution”?

Rules

Before approval by both Houses of Parliament under Article 356(3), the President cannot dissolve the State Assembly; only suspension is allowed.
Use of Article 356 must be exceptional and a last step, after other measures fail (Sarkaria approach).

Facts (Timeline)

Aug 13, 1988 – Apr 21, 1989: S.R. Bommai (Janata Dal) is Chief Minister of Karnataka.

Apr 21, 1989: Governor reports loss of majority due to defections. President’s Rule is imposed under Article 356.

Bommai sends 19 letters seeking a floor test. Governor declines to allow a majority test.

Bommai challenges the action: High Court dismisses his writ; he appeals to the Supreme Court.

Sarkaria Commission (1988): Recommends Article 356 as a last resort only.

Arguments

Appellant (Bommai)

Governor acted without allowing a floor test.
No adequate objective material for Proclamation.
Immediate dissolution is unconstitutional before Parliament’s approval.

Respondent (Union)

Governor’s report showed breakdown of constitutional machinery.
Article 356 is a constitutional power to protect the Constitution.
Judicial review should be limited in such matters.

Judgment

The Supreme Court struck down the Proclamations in Karnataka and Meghalaya; those governments were restored.
Proclamations in Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, and Rajasthan were not invalidated; directions were issued for Nagaland.
Dissolution before Parliamentary approval is not allowed; only suspension of the Assembly is permitted initially.
The Court endorsed the last resort approach of the Sarkaria Commission.

Ratio

Judicial review is available to test a Proclamation under Article 356 on limited grounds:

Existence of relevant material supporting the Proclamation.
Absence of mala fides or improper purpose.
Whether less drastic measures were considered; Article 356 is a last resort.

Why It Matters

The decision protects federalism and prevents political misuse of Article 356. It ensures that elected State governments are not removed without a floor test and proper constitutional checks.

Key Takeaways

Floor test first: Numbers are proven on the Assembly floor, not just in the Raj Bhavan.
No instant dissolution: Wait for Article 356(3) approval.
Review exists: Courts can examine material and motive.
Last resort rule: Follow Sarkaria guidance; try milder steps before 356.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: F-S-R-L → Floor-Suspension-Review-Last resort

Floor: Prove majority on the floor.
Suspension: No dissolution before Parliament approves.
Review: Courts check material and motive.
Last resort: Use Article 356 only when nothing else works.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can courts review a President’s Proclamation under Article 356, and what is the test?

Rule: No dissolution before Article 356(3) approval; Article 356 is exceptional and a last resort.

Application: Governor denied floor test; material did not justify removal. Suspension could be used, but dissolution needed Parliament’s nod.

Conclusion: Limited judicial review applies; Proclamations in some States struck; dissolution before approval is unconstitutional.

Glossary

Article 356: Provision for President’s Rule in a State when constitutional machinery fails.
Proclamation: Formal Presidential order under Article 356.
Floor Test: Vote in the Assembly to prove majority.
Sarkaria Commission: Commission on Centre–State relations; advised cautious use of Article 356.