In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that ______ test is the primary method to test whether a State government enjoys majority support in the Assembly, and Governor cannot dismiss Ministry without testing majority on Assembly floor.

SR Bommai (1994) floor test as democratic standard: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition in States (Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland) based on Governor's reports alleging loss of majority, anti-secular activities, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Floor test primary method to test majority; Governor cannot dismiss Ministry without testing majority on Assembly floor, (ii) Presidential satisfaction subject to judicial review; courts can examine if based on objective material, not political considerations, (iii) Secularism part of basic structure; State government acting against secularism can justify Article 356, (iv) Assembly dissolution not automatic; can be revived if proclamation invalidated, (c) Applications: (i) Hung Assembly scenarios: Governor must invite leader most likely to command majority, verify through floor test, not subjective assessment, (ii) Judicial review: Courts can examine Governor's report, Presidential satisfaction for objective material, constitutional compliance, (iii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against political misuse of Article 356, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Elected representatives, not appointed Governor, decide government fate, (ii) Constitutional morality: Governor as constitutional functionary, not political agent, (iii) Judicial oversight: Courts ensure Article 356 used for genuine constitutional breakdown, not political ends, (e) Illustrates constitutional federalism: Floor test as democratic standard ensures State governments reflect Assembly majority; judicial review protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach.