Skip to main content

CASE REVIEW OF SR BOMMAI VS UOI

 CASE REVIEW OF SR BOMMAI VS UOI


INTRODUCTION

The imposition of President's Rule over a State of India is dealt with in Article 356. When a state is placed under President's Rule, the elected state government (headed by the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers) is sacked, the Council of Ministers is suspended at the legislature, and the Governor of the state is in charge of administration.


FACTS OF THE CASE
Between 13 August 1988 and 21 April 1989, SR Bommai was the chief minister of the Janata Dal government in Karnataka. On April 21, 1989, his government was dismissed under Article 356 of the constitution, and president's rule was established in what was then a party-based system to keep the opposition at bay. The dismissal was based on the fact that the administration had lost its majority as a result of large-scale defections orchestrated by a number of party leaders at the time. Despite a letter giving him with a copy of the resolution passed by the Janata Dal parliamentary party, then governor P Venkatasubbaiah declined to grant an opportunity to test his majority in the assembly.

DECISION OF THE COURT 

The Court determined that presidential declaration under Article 356 is not absolute, and that the president's power under Article 356 is conditioned. The Supreme Court ruled that judicial scrutiny of a presidential proclamation is not barred. Furthermore, if the presidential proclamation is shown to be unlawful, the legislature that was dissolved by the proclamation can be reinstated. It was also argued that Article 74(2) prohibits the court from enquiring into the information on which the proclamation is based, but this argument was dismissed by the court.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE S.R. BOMMAI VS UNION OF INDIA CASE

  1. The case put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of State governments by a hostile Central government.

  2. The verdict ruled that the floor of the Assembly is the only forum that should test the majority of the government of the day, and not the subjective opinion of the Governor, who is often referred to as the agent of the Central government.

  3. Judgment ruled that an improperly dismissed government could be restored to office. Thus it established faith in federalism and judiciary.

  4. In this judgment Supreme Court showed signs of becoming a strong bulwark of constitutional right and propriety.

  5. Bommai doctrine is applied to protect states from discretion and political games of Central government.

 

 

CONCLUSION

This case examines the legal procedure as well as the entire domain of constitutional imperatives on Central-State relations and the role of State Governors in calling for President's control. The fact that under our Constitution's arrangement, tremendous power is debated at the federal level in relation to the states does not imply that the states are merely appendices to the federal government. Within the fields to which they are assigned, the States are the most powerful. The powers of the Center cannot be tampered with. This ruling is widely regarded as a landmark decision since it has put an end to the arbitrary removal of state governments under Article 356.The judgement presumed that the power of the president is not absolute but an accustomed power and the presidential proclamation is not excused from the judicial analysis.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996)

     POONAM VERMA VS. ASHWIN PATEL & ORS (10 MAY, 1996) INTRODUCTION The medical profession is perhaps the noblest profession among any remaining professions in India. For a patient, the specialist resembles God. What's more, God is trustworthy. In any case, that is the patient's opinion. As a general rule, doctors are individuals. Furthermore, to fail is human. Doctors might submit a slip-up. Doctors might be careless. The care staff might be imprudent. Two demonstrations of carelessness might bring about a lot more pressing issue. It very well might be because of gross carelessness. The sky is the limit. In such a situation, it is basic to figure out who was careless, and under what conditions. For this situation, the Supreme Court separated carelessness, impulsiveness, and foolishness. An individual is supposed to be a careless individual when he/she unintentionally submits a demonstration of exclusion and disregards a positive obligation that he/she ought to ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur ...
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of ...
Post a Comment
Read more