On
“Rameshwar
Prasad & Ors vs. Union of India & Anr[1]”
Equivalent citations: -
AIR 2006 SC 980
Case Number:-
Writ Petition (civil) 257 of 2005
Decided On: - 24
January 2006
Before: -
Honourable Supreme Court of India
Decided By (Bench): -
●
Justice Y.K. Sabharwal (CJI)
●
Justice K.G. Balakrishnan (Dissenting
Judge)
●
Justice B.N. Agrawal
●
Justice Ashok Bhan
●
Justice Arijit Pasayat (Dissenting Judge)
Facts of this Case: -
In 2005, Bihar held
elections for Legislative Assemblies. There was no party that was unable to
create a government. As a result, on March 7, 2005, a notice was issued
establishing President's Rule in the state until a government could be
constituted. The President's rule was only supposed to be transitory. However,
on April 27, 2005, the Governor published a report stating that there is a
possibility of horse-trading in the state and that another chance to form a
government should be offered. On the 21st of May, 2005, the Governor presented
a new report in which he repeated his previous position and requested that the
suspended Assembly be dissolved so that the electorate could prove their
government in the Assembly once more. The Legislative Assembly of Bihar was
dissolved on May 23, 2005, as a result of this report. This was argued in front
of the Supreme Court.
Issues Raised: -
1) Is it permissible to dissolve the
Legislative Assembly before its first sitting under Article 174(2)(b) of the
Constitution?
2) Whether the 23rd May 2005 proclamation to
dissolve Bihar Assembly was illegal and unconstitutional?
3) What does Article 361 provide the
Governor in terms of Immunity?
Reasoning of the Court:
-
The
minority's opinions appear to be based primarily on reasons that affirmed the
President's Order's constitutional legitimacy. To begin with, the Bommai case
was inapplicable since there was no legislature in Bihar, unlike the dissolved
assemblies in Karnataka and Nagaland. However, it is argued that the differing
fact circumstances cannot diverge, subtract, or weaken the principles
established in the Bommai case, nor can they replace its core thinking. Second,
it said that there was no evidence that the governor genuinely hindered the
Janata Dal (U) from making a claim; the latter had taken no preparatory steps
to stake its claim before the governor intervened. With all due respect to the
Court, it is submitted that the minority utterly disregarded the fact that the
main point of proposing the assembly's dissolution in such a hurry was to
prevent Nitish Kumar from even mounting a claim to form the government. Third,
as Justice Pasayat pointed out, the governor's actions could not be viewed as
politically correct if he believed they were morally wrong. This is his point
of view. It's possible that it's incorrect. In terms of his authority, the
Constitution may or may not spell it out explicitly. But, in the end, it's all
a matter of perspective. The majority judgement that changed the path of Indian
elections argued that the president was the most legally accountable
functionary who permitted himself to be rushed into signing the order of
dissolution. He might have requested the prime minister's council of ministers
to wait; he could have taken his time, undertaken the required discussions
before signing the impugned order dissolving the Bihar parliament, and made the
decision only after due thought. He also had the option of returning the
subject to the cabinet for reconsideration. All of the president's rights and
powers are perfectly within our constitutional framework. Insofar as the
president's notice was found illegal by the court in this case, the president's
office cannot be absolved of its constitutional duties. However, the court
issued an interim ruling, thereby creating a constitutional oddity by
permitting the second election to go place. Indeed, this temporary order
rendered the petition moot since, by the time the judgement was handed down in
this case, the second government had already taken power, which is why the
President's order was found unlawful, but no restoration of the status quo
cabinet was ordered. This caused a discrepancy as to whether this case was a
constitutional win over political evil or merely a demonstration of the
latter's might.
Judgement of the Court:
-
The
dissolution of the Legislative Assembly was ruled unconstitutional. The case
was decided with a 3:2 majority in favour of the argument that the president's
order clearly fulfils the criteria of being unconstitutional. The particular
Judgements based on issues were: -
1)
Judicial review of a proclamation made under Article 356
is possible, but only to a limited extent. The power of judicial review can
only be invoked when a power is exercised mala fide or on entirely extraneous
or irrelevant reasons. Judicial review principles that apply when an
administrative action is challenged cannot be applied stricto sensu.
2)
The protection provided by Section 361 does not preclude
the Court from examining the action's legitimacy, including on the basis of
malafide intent.
3)
A Public Interest Litigation cannot be heard if the
position adopted is in direct opposition to the one expressed by those who are
impacted by the action. In this case, the Public Interest Litigation will be
dismissed.
Analysis: -
This was the first time a state legislative assembly
was dissolved before its first meeting, and a majority to establish the
government was obtained by unethical and unlawful means.
The petitioners stated that in order for the state
legislative assembly to be dissolved, the President must be satisfied that the
state's government cannot be carried out in conformity with the Constitution
and that the constitutional machinery has completely failed.This must be
supported by solid proof. The entire point of holding the assembly in suspended
animation was to give political parties time to reconsider their alliances in
order to ensure a majority in the assembly. However, before this could happen,
the Governor issued a report based only on suspicion, as there was no clear
evidence of horse trading. As a result, Article 365 has been abused.
The Speaker has the power to dismiss MLAs for
engaging in horse trading. This authority cannot be assumed by the Governor.
The Governor's report is founded on false facts, as the claims were made on the
basis of ipse dixit, and hence were not proven in court. The case of S.R Bommai
v. Union of India should be used to assess the dissolution of the legislative
assembly.
It was also decided that the governor of a state had
unlimited immunity under Article 361 of the Indian Constitution. When they use
their powers, fulfil their duties, or undertake any other act related to such
duty or authority, they are not accountable to any court of law. It is
important to remember, however, that while the governor is not accountable to
the court, the court does have the authority to review the decision's
legitimacy and meaning.
Comment and Conclusion:
-
After
the S.R. Bommai case (S.R
Bommai v. Union of India)[2],Rameshwar
Prasad v. Union of India[3]
is a significant case that defends democratic values and reiterates the
government's right to resolve the arbitrary dissolution of legislative
assemblies. The two opposing justices likewise provided a different way of looking
at the issues. They prioritised lawful and equitable measures, even if it meant
dissolving the legislative assembly. This point of view is valid when it comes
to morals and ethics. The majority, on the other hand, considered that Article
365 of the Constitution should only be
invoked in the rarest of circumstances, as the framers of our Constitution had
anticipated and expected. They thought that the liberal application of this
article would make democracy and its values a farce. "Such articles will
never be called into effect and will remain a dead letter," according to
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar[4].
There are various alternative solutions for solving this dilemma from the
standpoint of constitutionality. It is possible to conduct a floor test to
determine the government's strength and stability. The legislature can be
placed on hold, and the Governor can make recommendations to the Council of
Ministers based on relevant and essential information in a report. As a result,
implementing President's rule under Article 365 should be a governor's last
resort. The recommendations of the Sarkaria
Commission[5]
should be considered in this regard when choosing a governor.
Following
this decision, Buta Singh, the Governor of Bihar, resigned, while A.P.J. Abdul
Kalam, the President of India, considered quitting.
To
prevent the executive branch from abusing the power granted to them under Article 356
of the constitution. However, there cannot be a one-size-fits-all formula, but
rather a separate law spelling out the exact grounds on which the executive's
discretion is to be used.
0 Comments