Claim

In 1994, a nine-judge Supreme Court bench ruling in the S.R. Bommai case is what curbed the misuse of Article 356.

“उसी कांग्रेस में 1994 में यदि एसआर बॉम्बई के मसले में सुप्रीम कोर्ट के नौ जजों ने यह फैसला नहीं दिया होता। जनता के मुख्यमंत्री थे। उस फैसले के बाद 356 के दुरुपयोग पर रोक लगी।”

Rationale

The claim matches the record: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India was decided on 11 March 1994 by a nine-judge Supreme Court bench. The judgment held that proclamations under Article 356 are subject to judicial review, required majority to be tested on the floor of the Assembly, and allowed courts to restore dismissed state governments — widely credited, including by constitutional scholars and court records, with curbing the misuse of President's Rule that had occurred over 90 times before 1994. The anchor's framing (year, bench strength, case, and effect) is factually correct; only the transliteration 'Bommai' vs 'Bombay' in the Hindi quote is a trivial phonetic artifact.

Evidence

• https://indiankanoon.org/doc/60799/ Full text of S.R. Bommai vs Union of India, decided 11 March 1994 by a nine-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court. ✓ reachable · archived
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._R._Bommai_v._Union_of_India Confirms the case was heard by a nine-judge bench (Pandian, Ahmadi, Verma, Kuldip Singh, Sawant, Ramaswamy, Agrawal, Yogeshwar Dayal, Jeevan Reddy) and that the 1994 judgment sought to curb blatant misuse of Article 356 by making President's Rule proclamations subject to judicial review. ✓ reachable · archived
• https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-analysis/s-r-bommai-v-union-of-india-case-1994 Explains that before Bommai, Article 356 had been invoked over 90 times, often on doubtful grounds, and that the 1994 ruling established judicial review, floor-test requirements, and limits that sharply reduced its misuse. ✓ reachable · archived