President’s Rule and Its Misuse: The Bommai Case, 1994 — MCQs with Answers (Set 1)

Manipur has had President’s Rule imposed more times than any other Indian state, closely followed by Uttar Pradesh.

The correct answer is Uttarakhand. The High Court ordered a floor test for the Harish Rawat government, which was then restored after Rawat proved his majority on the floor, a direct real-world example of Bommai’s principles at work.

The correct answer is two months. The Court also held that the proclamation is subject to judicial review, and that courts can restore a dismissed government if they find it unconstitutional.

The correct answer is 9 judges. The bench held that a state government’s majority must be tested on the floor of the Assembly, not judged by the Governor’s own opinion.

The correct answer is that 7 of the 19 retracted, saying they had been misled into signing. The Governor still recommended President’s Rule, calling this a central issue in the later Supreme Court case.

The correct answer is 21 April 1989. Bommai had been Chief Minister since 13 August 1988; his dismissal came after the Governor refused him a floor test despite a legislature party resolution.

In 2016, the Uttarakhand High Court ordered a floor test for the dismissed Harish Rawat government while it was still under President’s Rule, then restored the government after he proved his majority — a direct real-world application of Bommai’s principles decades later.

Article 356 was invoked close to 100 times between 1950 and 1994, but only around 29 times between 1995 and 2021 — a dramatic decline directly attributed to the Bommai judgment’s stricter limits.

The Court held that a state government’s majority must be tested on the floor of the Assembly, not decided by the Governor’s own subjective opinion.

A 9-judge Supreme Court bench decided the case on 11 March 1994, one of the largest benches to rule on Article 356.

President’s Rule was imposed on Karnataka on 21 April 1989 after defections cost Bommai’s Janata Dal government its majority. The Governor refused Bommai’s request for a floor test, which became the case’s central legal question.

The Sarkaria Commission, set up in 1983, had already recommended stricter limits on when Article 356 should be used.

The Bommai case held that a state government’s majority must be tested on the floor of the assembly, not decided by the Governor alone.

The Supreme Court’s 1994 ruling in S.R. Bommai vs Union of India significantly limited the misuse of Article 356.

Between 1966 and 1977, Article 356 was invoked especially often, frequently against non-Congress state governments.

Article 356 allows the President to impose President’s Rule, taking over a state if its constitutional machinery has failed.