SHRI SHIVAJI MARATHA

SOCIETYS
LAW COLLEGE, PUNE411002
MOOT-COURT- II (20142015)
CASE NAME:
S. R. Bommai
VS
UNION OF INDIA
(Civil appeal no. 3645 of
1989)
[1994] 2 SCR: 644, AIR 1994 SC
1918(1994)3 SCC 1
SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF
APPELLANTS

BY
NAME
GHANASHYAM SHINDE
CLASS

: MR.
: LLB III

ROLL NO

DATE OF SUBMISSION
2014
PLACE

: SEPTEMBER 6,
: PUNE
Memorial on the

behalf of Appellant

Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Vakalatnama
Statement of Jurisdiction
Statement of Facts
Statement of Issues
Arguments Advanced
Prayer
The Index of Authorities
List of Abbreviations
Bibliography

Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant

Statement Of
Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has original, appellate and advisory
jurisdiction. Its exclusive original jurisdiction extends to any
dispute between the Government of India and one or more
States or between the Government of India and any State or
States on one side and one or more States on the other or
between two or more States, if and insofar as the dispute
involves any question (whether of law or of fact) on which the
existence or extent of a legal right depends.
In addition, Article 32 of the Constitution gives an extensive
original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in regard to
enforcement of Fundamental Rights. It is empowered to issue
directions, orders or writs, including writs in the nature of
habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and
certiorari to enforce them. The Supreme Court has been
conferred with power to direct transfer of any civil or criminal
case from one State High Court to another State High Court or
from a court subordinate to another state High Court.
The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can be invoked
by a certificate granted by the High Court concerned under
Article 132(1), 133(1) or 134 of the Constitution in respect of
any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court in both civil
and criminal cases, involving substantial questions of law as to
the interpretation of the Constitution. Appeals also lie to the

Supreme Court in civil matters if the High Court concerned

certifies accordingly.
Honble Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear this case under
Article 132 of the Constitution.

Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant

Statement of facts
1. The Janata Party being the majority party in the State
Legislature had formed Government under the leadership
of S.R. Bommai.

2. In September 1988, the Janata Party and Lok Dal merged

into a new party called Janata Dal. The Ministry was
expanded with addition of 13 members.

3. Within two days thereafter, one K.R. Molakery, a legislator

of Janata Dal defected from the party. He presented a
letter to the Governor along with 19 letters, allegedly
signed by legislators supporting the Ministry, withdrawing
their support to the Ministry.

4. As a result on 19 April, the Governor sent a report to the

President stating therein there were dissensions and
defections in the ruling party.

5. He further stated that in view of the withdrawal of the

support by the said legislators, the chief Minister, Bommai
did not command a majority in the Assembly and, hence,
it was inappropriate under the Constitution, to have the
State administered by an executive consisting of Council
of Ministers which did not command the majority in
the state assembly.

6. He, therefore, recommended to the President that he

should exercise power under Article 356(1).

7. However on the next day seven out of the nineteen

legislators who had allegedly written the said letters to the
Governor sent letters to him complaining that their
signatures were obtained on the earlier letters by
misrepresentation and affirmed their support to the
Ministry.

Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant

8. The Chief Minister and his Law Minister met the Governor
the same day and informed him about the decision to
summon the Assembly, even by bringing forward the
scheduled session, to prove the confidence of assembly in
his government. To the same effect, he sent a telex
message to the President.

9. The Governor however sent yet another report to the

President on the same day i.e., 20-4-1989, and stated that
the Chief Minister had lost the confidence of the majority

in the House and repeated his earlier request for action

under Article 356(1).

10.
On that very day, the President issued the
Proclamation in question with the recitals already referred
to above. The Proclamation was, thereafter approved by
the Parliament as required by Article 356(3).

11.
A writ petition was filed on 26 April 1989 challenging
the validity of the proclamation. A special bench of 3
judges of Karnataka High Court dismissed the writ petition.

12.
The writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court
against the Order of Karnataka High Court by appellant.

Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant

Statement of Issue

1)Whether the Presidential Proclamation under Art.

356 of Indian Constitution justiciable or not and if
yes to what extent?
2)What is the nature of the Presidential satisfaction
and whether the president has unfettered powers
to issue Proclamation under Art. 356 (1) of the
Constitution?

Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant

Arguments Advanced

1) Whether the Presidential Proclamation

under Art. 356 of Indian Constitution
justiciable or not and if yes to what extent?
i)

The Presidential Proclamation may be

justiciable in certain cases subject to Article
74 of the Indian Constitution.
In A. Sreeramulu Re, a single
judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Justice
Chinnappa Reddy, held that a Presidential
proclamation issued under Article 356 is not susceptible
to judicial review because the issue of the President's
satisfaction under Article 356 is basically a political
issue, the Constitution does not enumerate the
situations where President's rule can be imposed and
there are no "satisfactory criteria for a judicial
determination" of what are relevant considerations for
invoking the power under Article 356. Consequently the
question is intrinsically political and beyond the reach
of the Courts. Moreover, any attempt to settle a
controversy raised by a proclamation under Article 356
will necessarily be followed by tremendous
consequences. The very vastness of those
consequences makes it "impolitic or inexpedient" for a
Court to assume jurisdiction. On the assumption that
there is limited power of judicial review the Court held
that there was sufficient justification for the President's
proclamation.

Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant

ii) In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Union of

India, SC held that Article 356 involved essentially a
political question and rejected the contention of it was
not amenable to judicial determination.SC further held
that The satisfaction of the President is a subjective one
and cannot be tested by reference to any objective
tests. There may be a wide range of situations which
may arise and their political implications and
consequences may have to be evaluated in order to
decide whether the situation is such that the
government of the State cannot be carried on in
accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. So
one thing is certain that if the satisfaction is
mala fide or is based on wholly extraneous and
irrelevant grounds, the Court would have
jurisdiction to examine it.

iii) Presidential proclamation issued under Article 356

of the Constitution is not completely beyond judicial
review. Mala fides intention provides a ground for
judicial interference. So there must be some check i.e.
judicial review to avoid misuse of imposition of
President Rule.
iv) In Case of Rameshwar Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, SC
held that what ultimately determines the scope
of judicial review is the facts and circumstances
of the given case. SC further held that judicial
review even further extends to the examining of
governors report.

Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant

2) What is the nature of the Presidential

satisfaction and whether the president has
unfettered powers to issue Proclamation
under Art. 356 (1) of the Constitution?
: i) In the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.
Union of India, SC held that the satisfaction of
the President is a subjective one and cannot be
tested by reference to any objective tests. There
may be a wide range of situations which may arise
and their political implications and consequences
may have to be evaluated in order to decide
whether the situation is such that the government
of the State cannot be carried on in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution.
The powers of President under Art. 356 (1) are
not absolute
but conditional. President may impose
proclamation subject
Article 356 of the Constitution.
ii)

Article 356 of the constitution reads as under:

Provisions in case of failure of constitutional

machinery in State
Article 356(1) If the President, on receipt of
report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is
satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the
government of the State cannot be carried on in
accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the
President may be Proclamation
Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant

Article 356(1) (a) Assume to himself all or any of the

functions of the Government of the State and all or any
of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor
or anybody or authority in the State other than the
Legislature of the State;

Article 356 (1) (b) Declare that the powers of the

Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under
the authority of Parliament

Article 356 (1) (c) Make such incidental and

consequential provisions as appear to the president to
be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the
objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for
suspending in whole or in part the operation of any
provisions of this constitution relating to anybody or

authority in the State Provided that nothing in this

clause shall authorize the President to assume to
himself any of the powers vested in or exercisable by a
High Court, or to suspend in whole or in part the
operation of any provision of this Constitution relating
to High Courts.
So President can impose Presidential Proclamation only
if he satisfies that Constitutional machinery has been
failed in the state.

Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant

Prayer
It is here in after the Appellants prayer before
this Honble court that in the light of facts, issue raised,
argument advanced, authorities cited, the Honble
court may requested to,
1)Set aside the President Proclamation as imposed
by the President of India in the State.

2)To revive the state assembly.

Memorial on the behalf

of Appellants

The Index of
Authorities
Cases:
1.

State of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India (AIR

1977, SC)

2.

Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Union of India

(AIR 206, SC 980)

Rules and Regulations:

1.Article 74 of the Constitution of India and
Justiciability of advice of council of
ministers to President
2.Sarkaria Commission on central state
relations.

Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant

List of Abbreviations.

A.I.R

: All India Reporters.

Sec

: Section.

Art.

: Article

SC

: Supreme Court

SCR

: Supreme Court Reports

SCC

: Supreme Court Cases

Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant

Bibliography
President Rule: Limits and Checks
Constitution of India

Websites:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

www.indinkanoon.com
www.supremecourtcaselaw.com
www.wikipedia.com
www.lawsofindia.com
www.lawforum.com
www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in

: A. G. Noorani
: M.P.Jain

Memorial on the
behalf of Appellant