Explanation:

• The 1994 judgement made some very serious and clear observations against the use of ‘private opinion’ and any sort of subjective analysis, of anyone, in deciding the fate of the government.
• The judgement held, “The assessment of the strength of the Ministry is not a matter of private opinion of any individual be he the governor or the President.
• It is capable of being demonstrated and ascertained publicly in the House.
• Hence when such a demonstration is possible, it is not open to bypass it and instead depend upon the subjective satisfaction of the Governor or the President.
• Such private assessment is an anathema to the democratic principle, apart from being open to serious objections of personal mala fides.
• In the Bommai judgement the apex court also made it clear the circumstances under which the decision to impose President’s Rule can be made without going for a floor test.
• The court held, “The sole exception to this will be a situation of all-pervasive violence where the governor comes to the conclusion-and records the same in his report -that for the reasons mentioned by him, a free vote is not possible.