Create a custom practice set
Pick category, difficulty, number of questions, and time limit. Start instantly with your own quiz.
Generate QuizGK Question
In SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court emphasized that Governor's report recommending President's Rule must promote constitutional continuity by:
- Suspending core constitutional features during crisis
- Preserving core constitutional features like basic structure even during crisis
- Applying constitutional features only to Union government, not State governments
- Replacing constitutional features with emergency powers
Answer: Preserving core constitutional features like basic structure even during crisis
Constitutional continuity under SR Bommai: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition violating constitutional continuity, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Governor's report must promote constitutional continuity: Preserving core constitutional features (basic structure) even during crisis, (ii) Constitutional breakdown narrowly defined: Genuine inability to function in accordance with Constitution, not mere political instability, (iii) Judicial review: Courts examine whether report promotes constitutional continuity, not just procedural compliance, (c) Applications: (i) Post-1994: Courts more willing to strike down Article 356 proclamations violating constitutional continuity, (ii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy against arbitrary Centre overreach via gubernatorial discretion, (d) Rationale: (i) Democratic legitimacy: Elected State governments represent people's will; Article 356 exceptional measure, not routine tool, (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: Constitutional continuity requirement protects State autonomy; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine crises, not political convenience.