S.R. Bommai Case: Secularism as a Basic Structure of the Indian Constitution
Exam Relevance: GS Paper II (Indian Constitution, Polity, Governance), GS Paper I (Constitutional Philosophy), Essay Paper, Ethics (Foundational Values)
Introduction
The judgment in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) stands as one of the most authoritative and transformative decisions in Indian constitutional history. Delivered by a nine-judge Constitution Bench, the verdict fundamentally reshaped Centre–State relations, restricted the arbitrary use of Article 356 (President’s Rule), strengthened federalism, and most crucially, declared secularism to be an integral part of the basic structure of the Indian Constitution.
In a constitutional democracy as diverse as India, the Bommai judgment serves as a legal and moral compass, ensuring that political power is exercised within the boundaries of constitutional values. For UPSC aspirants, this case is indispensable for understanding constitutional morality, secularism, judicial review, and democratic accountability.
Historical and Political Background
Between 1950 and 1994, Article 356 was invoked more than 90 times, often to dismiss state governments led by opposition parties. The discretionary powers of Governors and the Centre were frequently criticised as tools for political manipulation rather than constitutional necessity.
In 1989, the Janata Party government led by S.R. Bommai came to power in Karnataka. Within months, internal defections weakened the government. The Governor sent a report to the President claiming loss of majority without directing a floor test. Acting on this report, the President dissolved the State Legislative Assembly under Article 356.
S.R. Bommai challenged this action, and similar petitions from other states were clubbed together, leading to a historic constitutional examination of executive power versus constitutional safeguards.
Constitutional Issues Before the Court
The Supreme Court examined multiple far‑reaching constitutional questions:
- Is the President’s satisfaction under Article 356 absolute, or subject to judicial review?
- What constitutes a breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state?
- Can the Centre dismiss a state government without testing majority on the Assembly floor?
- Is secularism a foundational principle forming part of the basic structure of the Constitution?
Key Constitutional Findings of the Judgment
1. Judicial Review of Article 356
The Court held that the President’s proclamation under Article 356 is not immune from judicial scrutiny. Courts can examine:
- Whether relevant material existed
- Whether the material was used in a bona fide manner
- Whether the action was malafide, arbitrary, or based on extraneous considerations
If the proclamation is found unconstitutional, courts can restore the dismissed government and revive the dissolved Assembly—an unprecedented assertion of judicial authority.
2. Floor Test as the Only Constitutional Method
A landmark principle laid down was that majority must be tested on the floor of the Legislative Assembly, not in the Raj Bhavan or through political assessments. The Governor cannot substitute democratic processes with personal discretion.
This principle has since become a constitutional convention, repeatedly reaffirmed in later cases relating to government formation and confidence votes.
Secularism as a Basic Structure: Core Contribution of Bommai
Meaning of Secularism in the Indian Constitution
The Court clarified that Indian secularism is not anti-religion, but rather religious neutrality of the State. It requires:
- Equal respect for all religions
- Non-identification of the State with any religion
- Separation of religious identity from governance
Though the word secular was explicitly added to the Preamble by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment (1976), the Court held that secularism was always implicit in the constitutional scheme.
Secularism and State Governments
The Court ruled that if a state government pursues policies that undermine secularism, such conduct may amount to a violation of the Constitution. However, such a conclusion must be based on objective material, not political disagreement.
Importantly, the judgment warned that religion cannot be used as an instrument of state policy or political mobilisation.
Bommai and the Basic Structure Doctrine
The basic structure doctrine, evolved in Kesavananda Bharati (1973), limits Parliament’s amending power. Bommai expanded this doctrine by clearly including secularism as a non‑negotiable constitutional feature.
Other basic structure elements reinforced by Bommai include:
- Federalism
- Democracy
- Rule of law
- Judicial review
Any executive or legislative action that damages these principles would be constitutionally invalid.
Impact on Federalism and Centre–State Relations
The Bommai judgment restored balance in India’s quasi‑federal system by:
- Curtailing arbitrary central interference
- Reinforcing state autonomy
- Strengthening cooperative federalism
Post‑Bommai, the use of Article 356 declined significantly, reflecting greater constitutional restraint.
Long‑Term Significance of the Judgment
Constitutional Governance
Bommai shifted Indian democracy from executive supremacy to constitutional supremacy, ensuring that political convenience cannot override constitutional principles.
Electoral Ethics
The judgment also recognised that appeals to religion for political gain violate constitutional morality, reinforcing the secular character of Indian democracy.
Contemporary Relevance
In an era of intense political polarisation, the Bommai principles continue to guide debates on:
- Use of Governors’ discretionary powers
- Centre–State conflicts
- Role of religion in public policy
Criticisms and Limitations
Some critics argue that the concept of basic structure is judge‑made and undefined, giving courts wide interpretative power. Others point out that despite Bommai, political misuse of constitutional offices has not disappeared, though it has become more constrained.
Conclusion
The S.R. Bommai judgment is more than a legal ruling—it is a constitutional safeguard against authoritarianism, communal politics, and central dominance. By declaring secularism as part of the basic structure, the Supreme Court ensured that India remains a plural, democratic, and constitutionally governed republic.
For UPSC aspirants, Bommai is not just a case law—it is a living example of constitutional morality in action.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
Q1. Why is the S.R. Bommai case considered a landmark judgment?
Because it restricted the misuse of Article 356, strengthened federalism, introduced mandatory floor tests, and declared secularism as part of the basic structure.
Q2. What did the Court say about secularism in Bommai?
The Court held that secularism is an essential feature of the Constitution and that the State must remain neutral in matters of religion.
Q3. Can courts reverse the President’s Rule after Bommai?
Yes. If Article 356 is misused, courts can restore the dismissed government and Assembly.
Q4. How is Bommai relevant for UPSC GS Paper II?
It connects constitutional values like secularism, federalism, judicial review, and Centre–State relations—core GS II themes.
Q5. Does Bommai prohibit all use of Article 356?
No. It allows use only in genuine cases of constitutional breakdown, based on objective material.
