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 held that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Which of the following best describes the implication of this holding for Article 356?
- States can promote any religion without constitutional limits
- State governments acting against secularism can justify imposition of President's Rule
- Secularism applies only to Union government, not States
- Secularism can be amended by simple majority in Parliament
Answer: State governments acting against secularism can justify imposition of President's Rule
SR Bommai secularism and Article 356: (a) Context: Challenge to President's Rule imposition in States alleging anti-secular activities, (b) Supreme Court holding: (i) Secularism part of basic structure; cannot be amended even by constitutional amendment, (ii) State government acting against secularism can justify Article 356 imposition, (iii) But Presidential satisfaction subject to judicial review; courts examine whether action genuinely against secularism, not political pretext, (c) Applications: (i) Secularism test: State policies promoting religious discrimination, communal violence can trigger Article 356, (ii) Judicial scrutiny: Courts examine whether action genuinely threatens constitutional secularism, not mere political disagreement, (iii) Federal balance: Protects State autonomy while enabling Union to preserve constitutional order, (d) Rationale: (i) Constitutional identity: Secularism essential to Indian constitutionalism (Preamble, Articles 25-28), (ii) Democratic legitimacy: Union duty to preserve constitutional order against State action undermining secularism, (iii) Judicial oversight: Courts ensure Article 356 used for genuine constitutional breakdown, not political ends, (e) Illustrates constitutional federalism: Secularism as basic structure enables Union to preserve constitutional order; judicial review ensures Article 356 used for genuine threats, not political convenience.