Facts Of The Case:

1. The Janata Party is the largest party in the Karnataka state legislature to form the Government under the leadership of S.R. BOMMAI. In September, 1988, Janata party and lok dal merged to form the new Janata dal's. The department was expanded by the inclusion of 13 members. Two days later, K.R. MOLAKERY, Janata Dal's legislature is paralyzed in the party. He produced a letter to Governor Pekentanti Venkatasubbaiah allegedly signed by legislators supporting the department, withdrawing their support.
   
   
2. As a result, on April 19, the emperor sent a report to the President stating that there was a disagreement with the ruling party. He also pointed out because of the withdrawal of the support of the said legislators, the Prime Minister, Bommai did not order the majority in the assembly and as a result, it was inappropriate under the Constitution, for the Government to be governed by a Minister.
    
3. A letter of complaint was filed on April 26, 1989, to challenge the validity of the proclamation. A special 3 judge panel of the Karnataka High Court has withdraw the application.
   On August 7,1988, the President proclaimed based on the report of the governor and dismissed the government of Nagaland thereby terminating the legislature. The validity of the proclamation was challenged in the Gauhati High Court. The division bench comprising the Chief Justice and J. Hansaria, listens to the request .But, before the third judge could hear the case, the union of India, led by Rajiv Gandhi of the Congress party, moved the court to a special hearing and the case continued in the Supreme Court.
    
4. As a result of the demolition of Babri Masjid, the Central Government has fired BJP Government of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh. Consequently, on December 15,1992, the President proclaimed article 356 excelling the State Government and abolishing the legislative assemblies of Madhya Pradesh.
   

Petitioner- S.R Bommai v/s Respondent- Union Of India
Bench: S.R.Pandian, A.M. Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, J.S.Verma, P.B. Sawant, K.Ramaswamy, S.C.Agarwal, Yogeshwar Dayal, B.P Jeevan Reddy.
Date Of Judgement- March 11, 1994. Issues Raised In The Case:

1. Whether the President's rule inflicted in the six states is constitutionally valid?
2. Whether the President has unchained rules to proclaim article 356(1) of the Indian constitution?

Judgement Of The Court:
This case deals with assessing the lawful mechanism and searching the whole area of Constitutional imperative on Central State relations and the contentions role of State Governors calling President's rule. The fact that under the system of our Constitution great power is discussed upon the centre vis- a vis the states does not mean that the States are little appendices of the centre. The center cannot temper with their powers.

This decision is acknowledged to be an important judgement as it has put an end to the arbitrary expulsion of State Governments under article 356 has to function .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. Written By Srishti