D. Federalism, Centre–State Relations & Governance
Free study material · concepts, shortcuts & solved questions
| Case | Year | Bench | Holding |
|---|---|---|---|
| In re: Berubari Union | 1960 | 8-judge (advisory) | Held ceding Indian territory to another country requires a constitutional amendment under Art. 368, not merely an ordinary law or executive agreement. |
| S.R. Bommai v. Union of India | 1994 | 9-judge | Held Art. 356 (President's Rule) is subject to judicial review; secularism and federalism are themselves Basic Structure; a floor test on the assembly floor — not the Governor's subjective opinion — must decide majority. |
| Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu | 1992 | 5-judge | Upheld the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) as constitutional, but held the Speaker's disqualification decision is a quasi-judicial act subject to limited judicial review. |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India | 1997 | 7-judge | Held judicial review under Arts. 32/226 by the Supreme Court/High Courts is Basic Structure; struck down provisions that tried to entirely oust High Court jurisdiction over administrative tribunals. |
| Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India | 2006 | 5-judge | Held the premature, malafide dissolution of the Bihar Assembly (2005) — before a fresh government could even attempt to form a majority — was unconstitutional, reinforcing that Governor's Art. 356 recommendations are judicially reviewable for malafide. |
| Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India | 2018 | 5-judge | Held the Delhi Lieutenant Governor has no independent decision-making power; must act on the aid & advice of the elected Council of Ministers, except on the three subjects excluded from Delhi's legislative competence (police, public order, land). |
| Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India ("Services" case) | 2023 | 5-judge | Held Delhi's elected government — not the Centre — controls "services" (transfers/postings of officers) as an extension of the 2018 ruling's logic; subsequently overridden in substance by Parliament through the Government of NCT of Delhi (Amendment) Act, 2023. |
Notes. Read Bommai as the Kesavananda of federalism — it converted Art. 356 from a largely unreviewable executive discretion into a judicially policed power, and it is the case that gives "secularism" and "federalism" their status as Basic Structure features. The two NCT of Delhi rulings (2018 and 2023) are frequently conflated in objective questions because they share a case name and bench size — remember they answer different questions (the LG's general role vs. specifically who controls "services").
Mnemonic. "Berubari Kicked Bommai's Chair, Rameshwar Needed Services" — Berubari (1960) → Kihoto Hollohan (1992) → Bommai (1994) → L. Chandra Kumar (1997) → Rameshwar Prasad (2006) → NCT Delhi/LG case (2018) → NCT Delhi/Services case (2023). Image: a state assembly chair being kicked over, forcing everyone to check who really controls the "services" at the end.
Practice Recall. Before reading on: the two "Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India" rulings share a name and bench size — what specific question did each one decide, and which year?
Answer: 2018 — the Delhi LG has no independent decision-making power and must act on aid & advice of the elected government (except police, public order, land). 2023 — Delhi's elected government, not the Centre, controls "services" (transfers/postings) as an extension of the 2018 logic; Parliament then legislatively overrode this later in 2023.