Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Union of India: 2006 Supreme Court Ruling on Bihar Assembly Dissolution & Presidential Power
Case Name: RAMESHWAR PRASAD & Ors. Vs UNION OF INDIA & Anr. On 24 January, 2006
Citation: (2006) 2 SUPREME COURT CASES 1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
This case addressed the issue of the dissolution of Bihar’s Legislative assembly by the Governor of Bihar and imposition President Rule. The petitioner, Rameshwar Prasad, challenged the Governor’s action in the court of law that the dissolution was unconstitutional and the Supreme Court examined whether the action of the Governor of dissolving the assembly was based on the valid grounds and in accordance with the constitutional provisions.
This case mainly involves these articles mentioned below of The Constitution of India:
1. Article 174 : Which concerns the Governor’s power to dissolve the assembly.
2. Article 163 : Which talks about the Governor acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
3. Article 356 : This sets the framework for the Presidential Rule and talks about the exercise of Governor’s power.
This case arose after the state elections of the State of Bihar where no party had the required majority of 122 seats in the 243-member house and it resulted in a hung assembly . Which eventually resulted in the imposition of Article 365 of the constitution on the State of Bihar which is basically imposing the state emergency/ president rule. and the Bihar assembly was kept in suspended animation. While the petition was still pending before the court of law the Election Commission of India announced fresh elections which had more potential to create more problems in the state while the Supreme Court was yet to decide the issue in the court of law. The challenge in this case was whether the dissolution of Bihar’s State Assembly was based on the constitutional mandate or whether it was an arbitrary exercise of power. It also questioned the limits of the Governor’s discretion in dissolving the assembly.
The Supreme Court in this case said that the Governor if decides to dissolve the assembly the decision must be in accordance with the constitutional provisions, reasonable, and especially based on the advice of the Council of Ministers, as per Article 163 of The Constitution of India. This helped in clarifying the extent of Governor’s discretionary powers and also shown the importance of Judicial Review ensuring that powers cannot be used arbitrarily. The judgment emphasized the need for adhering to the constitutional norms and democratic processes, ensuring that the power to dissolve the assembly is not used arbitrarily.
EMERGENCY
A state of emergency in India refers to a period of governance that can be proclaimed by the President of India during certain crisis situations. Under the advice of the cabinet of ministers, the President can overrule many provisions of the Constitution, which guarantees Fundamental Rights to the citizens of India.
The emergency provisions are mentioned in Part XVIII of the Constitution of India, from 352 to 360. The reason behind incorporating these provisions in the constitution is to protect the sovereignty, unity, integrity, and security of the country, the democratic political system, and The constitution.
The Constitution of India mentions of 3 types of emergencies:
1. National Emergency
2. State Emergency / President Rule
3. Financial Emergency
Our case here which is Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India mentions about the State Emergency/ President Rule.
What is State Emergency/President Rule
When a state government fails to meet the constitutional requirements, the central government can take over the state’s administration under Article 356. This is commonly known as “President’s Rule”.
Article 356 allows the president to issue a proclamation if the central government is they feel that the state government now cannot run according to the constitutional guidelines. This may happen if the state government is not maintaining law and order in the state, facing political chaos, or not following the central government’s instructions. Additionally article 365 of the constitution of India states that if the state government is failing to follow the the directions from the central government , the president then can declare that state cannot run properly and can declare the President’s Rule in the state.
After the declaration of the president’s rule, it needs to be approved by both houses of parliament within two months from the date of issue. If the Lok Sabha is dissolved during this 2 months, then the proclamation remains valid only upto 30 after the first sitting of the new Lok Sabha. This happens only when the Rajya Sabha has approved it. And it can only be continued for a maximum period of 3 years with repeated parliament approval every 6 months.
When the President’s rule is in place, president takes over the state government’s functions and powers. The central government can take over state’s functions and powers, the parliament can take over the state legislature’s role. The president can take necessary actions like, even suspending some parts of the constitution related to the state.
If we talk about the judicial review part of this, initially, the 38th amendment in the year 1975 made the president’s rule beyond the reach of the court, which means it could not be challenged in any court on any ground. But this was changed after the 44th amendment in the year 1978, allowing the court’s to review whether the President’s decision was justified.
In short, the President’s rule is just a way for the central government to ensure that the state government sticks to the constitutional principles and gives the central government significant power, there are checks in place to prevent the misuse of and to protect the federal balance between the center and the states.
CORAM:
● Justice Y.K. Sabharwal (CJI)
● Justice K.G. Balakrishnan (Dissenting Judge)
● Justice B.N. Agrawal
● Justice Ashok Bhan
● Justice Arijit Pasayat (Dissenting Judge)
CASES REFERRED:
S. R. Bommai and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu and Ors.
State of Rajasthan Vs. Union of India
Kates v. Council of the City of Westland
FACTS OF THE CASE
• Legislative Assemblies were held in Bihar in 2005, but no party was able to form a government, there was chaos all around.
• Consequently, on March 7, 2005, a notice was issued establishing President’s Rule in the state until a government could be constituted.
• This was meant to be an interim measure, but on April 27, 2005, the Governor published a report indicating that there might be horse-trading in the state and that another opportunity to form a government should be provided.
• On May 21, 2005, the Governor again repeated his earlier stance and asked for the dissolution of the Assembly so that the electorate could prove their government in the Assembly.
• As a result of this report, the Legislative Assembly of Bihar was dissolved on May 23, 2005. The Supreme Court heard arguments on this issue.
• There was a constitutional crisis in Bihar as in The state of Bihar was going through a political and constitutional crisis at the time the case commenced.
• There was some disagreement on whether the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly was done in conformity with the Constitution.
• The petitioner, Rameshwar Prasad, argued that the governor’s dissolution of the Bihar Assembly was illegal.
• The primary question was whether the Governor’s dissolution of the Bihar Assembly was lawful and compliant with the constitution.
• The petitioner contended that the action undertaken constituted an abuse of authority and was not consistent with the standards of constitutional administration.
• A PIL was filed in the Supreme Court questioning the President’s Rule’s legality.
ISSUES RAISED:
1) Can the Legislative Assembly be dissolved in accordance with Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution before it has completed its initial task?
2) Was the proclamation to dissolve the Bihar Assembly on May 23, 2005, illegal and unconstitutional?
3) What immunity does the Governor obtain under Article 361?
ELABORATION OF THE ISSUES RAISED
Constitutionality of Presidential Proclamation: The primary question concerned the constitutionality of the Presidential Proclamation issued on May 23, 2005, which dissolved the Bihar Legislative Assembly. Since the Assembly had not even met once, Rameshwar Prasad and other MLAs argued that the dissolution was unconstitutional.
Governor’s Powers and Roles: The case contested the Governor’s power to suggest President’s Rule and the Assembly’s dissolution in accordance with Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. Reports of attempts to manipulate the election process led the governor to call for dissolution.
Legitimacy of Post-Election Reconstruction: The Supreme Court evaluated the legitimacy of both the Governor’s functions and the post-election reconstruction. Amongst those were the findings from the governor that recommended a fresh election in order to prevent corrupting democracy.
Effect on Electoral Procedure: The case highlighted the need for a fair and transparent electoral process by showing the connection between electoral issues and constitutional requirements.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
A political party that has the support of others may legitimately work to create a government, but this attempt shouldn’t be hampered by exploiting the power of dissolution.
The parliament was put on hold to allow political parties to look into developing a majority administration. After the restructuring process, it was obvious that over 135 MLAs favoured the NDA led by Shri Nitish Kumar. The Governor promptly reported the situation to the Cabinet in a midnight meeting to prevent the formation of the Bihar government.
In violation of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly of Bihar needs to be revoked.
CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENDANT
The dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly of Bihar, which is the subject of the appeal, is lawful and constitutional.
After considering every possibility, the governor of the State of Bihar was satisfied that no political party or coalition of parties could support a claim to a majority in the Legislative Assembly. Only then he asked the President of India to take the appropriate action.
Article 361 (1) of the Indian Constitution grants the Governor immunity and prevents him from being held accountable in court for the exercise and performance of his official powers and duties, as well as any actions he may take or apparently take in performing such obligations.
REASONING OF THE COURT
The opinions which were made by the minority were to be based on primarily reasons that affirmed the president’s adjudication. Initially, the S.R. The Bommai case was not relevant since, unlike the dissolved assemblies in Karnataka and Nagaland, Bihar lacked a legislature. Nonetheless, it was maintained that the various factual situations could not deviate from, reduce or undermine the values set forth in the Bommai decision nor can they replace its core thinking.
Second, it stated that there was no proof the governor was actually preventing the Janata Dal from staking a claim because the latter had not taken any advance measures to do so before the governor got involved. Third, if the governor thought his conduct was immoral, then it did not made them politically accurate, as Justice Pasayat pointed out. This point of view may be stated incorrectly through his opinion. In terms of his authority, the Constitution may or may not spell it out explicitly in front of the public.
But, in the end, it’s all a matter of perspective and different opinions and point of views of an individual. The majority judgement that changed the whole path of Indian elections and argued that the president was the most legally accountable functionary who permitted himself to be rushed into signing the order of dissolution of the parties. He could have taken his time, had the necessary conversations before signing the controversial order dissolving the Bihar parliament, and made the choice only after giving it thoughtful consideration. He could have even urged the prime minister’s council of ministers to put it off for a while. He also had the option of returning the issue to the cabinet for review. All of the president’s rights and powers are perfectly within our constitutional framework.
The president’s notice was found to be illegal by the court in this circumstance, the president’s office cannot be absolved of its constitutional duties. However, the court issued an interim ruling, thereby creating a constitutional peculiarity by permitting the second election to take place in the country. The second government had already taken power in their hands, which is why the President’s order was found to be unlawful, but they did not issue any of the restoration to the status quo cabinet. This caused a disparity among them as to whether this case was a constitutional win over political evil or merely a demonstration of the latter’s might.
ANALYSIS (LEGAL AND CRITICAL)
The referred case principally revolves around the Article 356, Article 32 and Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The said Article 356 of the Constitution of India deals with the matter of the President’s Rule in case of failure of constitutional machinery in a State, i.e., State Emergency.
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution further states that:
In case, the President is satisfied with the report of the Governor of the State or otherwise, that a situation has occurred in which the State Government is unable to carry out the functions of the State in accordance with the provisions of The Constitution of India, he can withdraw the legislative and executive powers of the State and transfer it to the Union. Upon this imposition of the President’s rule, there would not be any Council of Ministers and the State will be under the direct control of the Central Government.
The relevant provision of Article 356 of the Constitution of India says:
356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State
This Article of the Indian Constitution states that if the President is satisfied on getting the report from the Governor of state that a situation has arisen and the government of the State cannot be kept up according to the provisions of the Indian Constitution, the President has the power to proclaim the State Emergency, that means:
(a) transfer to himself all the functions of the government of the state and all the other powers vested with the Governor of the state or any other body or authority in the state other than the Legislature of the State .
(b) declare that the powers and authority with that of the Legislature of the State to be exercised by the Parliament directly.
(c) the president has the power to make any supplementary changes or orders that can be useful to fulfil the purpose of the proclamation of the State Emergency, that can also include provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to any body or authority in the State.
In 2005, upon the satisfaction of the President by the report received from the Governor of Bihar, the President imposed the State Emergency in Bihar on May 23, 2005 on the ground that the elections held were manipulated by offering incentives of which there were no concrete proof upon which the Governor’s report should have relied.
The Hon’ble Court was to make the use of Judicial Review for the following purposes:
(a) The Governor’s report was based on relevant material
(b) The Governor’s report was made bona fide
(c) Whether the facts have been duly verified
The Supreme Court held this proclamation of dissolving the State Assembly unconstitutional. The court’s reasoning involved that the Governor of Bihar misguided the President thus, resulting into the declaration of the proclamation of State Emergency in Bihar. As there was a lack of relevant material and proof for the ground of such imposition, the court further held that the said report has to be treated as “personal ipse dixit” of the Governor, which means that there was no backing of evidences of the Governor’s report and he merely sent the report based on his own contentions.
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution clearly suggests that the use of the said power to impose President’s Rule should be rational and not arbitrary, and should only be exercised in case of failure of Constitutional Machinery in the State. But, this was not the case, as the facts suggest that the imposition of State Emergency was merely based on pretention of the Governor that there was manipulation in the elections of Legislative Assembly, and thus, it was an erroneous decision of the President to impose the same.
Article 74 of the Constitution of India mentions the presence of Council of Ministers along with the Prime Minister for the aid and advise to the President:
74. Council of Ministers to aid and advise President
(a) Its clause (1) talks about that there shall be a Council of Ministers along with the Prime Minister as the head for the aid and advice of the President who shall exercise his functions and act in accordance with that advice.
(b) And its clause (2) says that, the courts do not have the power to investigate or question that whether the President received any advice from the Council of Ministers or to specify the advice given by them.
Also, it is essential to note that the Union Council of Ministers should have looked into the matter deeply and not just barely relying on the Governor’s report and accepting it in a careless manner as there was no proof of the matter of manipulation in the State Elections. Rather there should have been an in-depth discussion of the Governor of the state with the Union Council of Ministers to reach a satisfactory decision related to the same.
The Supreme Court also observed that the real object of proclamation of the President’s Rule and dissolution of the Legislative Assembly of Bihar was to keep away a particular political party to form the government in the state.
According to Article 326 of the Constitution of India:
326. Elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assemblies of States to be on the basis of adult suffrage.
This Article of the Indian Constitution mentions about the process of free and fair elections to be held for the House of the People and the Legislative Assemblies of the states to be held through Universal Adult Suffrage, i.e., every person who is the citizen of India and is not below the age of eighteen years, or not otherwise disqualified under the provisions of the Constitution of India or any other appropriate law made by the appropriate Legislature on the grounds of non -residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election; and no other unfair means to be practiced for the purpose of such elections.
As per the abovementioned Article of the Indian Constitution, the elections in the state took place smoothly but no party received absolute majority and thus, after receiving support from some smaller parties and independent Member of Legislative Assembly, NDA group was able to form majority government. But, the Governor’s report resulted into the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly, violating the purpose of Article 326 of the Indian Constitution.
Thus, the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar and the proclamation of State Emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution of India was unconstitutional as held by the Supreme Court of India.
JUDGEMENT
A Constitution Bench made up of Justices Arijit Pasayat, Y.K. Sabharwal, C.K. Thakker, R. V. Raveendran, and P. K. Balasubramanyan gave the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. It was decided by the court that the dissolution of the Legislative Assembly was unconstitutional. 3:2 majority voted in favour of the notion that the president’s directive meets the criteria for being unconstitutional in the case and The proclamation dissolving the State of Bihar’s Legislative Assembly was ruled to be illegal by the court.. The specific rulings rely on the following issues which are as follows:-
Ratio decidendi:
Before accepting the Governor’s report and making the Proclamation, the Union Council of Ministers ought to have given it a more thorough glance.
A proclamation made in accordance with Indian Constitution Article 356 is subject to judicial review. The Governor must maintain impartiality and refrain from disqualifying Legislative Assembly members, as stated by the Supreme Court. For the first time ever, a state legislative assembly was dissolved prior to its introductory meeting, and an unethical and illegal method was used to secure a majority for the formation of government. The court stated that a proclamation issued in accordance with Article 356 may be subject to limited judicial review.
Judicial review is permitted only when an authority is used fraudulently or for wholly unnecessary or irrelevant purposes. Strict application of the judicial review rules that govern challenges to administrative actions is not feasible. A case in the Public Interest cannot be heard if the position that is taken is wholly at conflict with the opinions of those who may be affected by the action. This will result in the dismissal of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) .
Section 361’s protection does not prevent the Court from recognising the action’s legitimacy, even if it is done with a malicious motive. The petitioners contended that the President had to be assured that the state’s government could not function in accordance with the Constitution and that the entire constitutional infrastructure had broken down in order for the state legislative assembly to be dissolved. Strong evidence is required to substantiate this case. Suspended motion was implemented specifically to allow political parties to reconsider their coalitions in order to secure a majority in the assembly. But before that could happen, there was no concrete proof of horse-trading, so the Governor published a report based solely on suspicion. Article 365 has therefore been misused .
The Indian Supreme Court acknowledged that the governor of a state had some discretionary powers, especially in relation to dissolving the Legislative Assembly. These authorities, meanwhile, are not unrestricted, and their use must adhere to both democratic government ideals and the terms of the Constitution. The Court observed that the democratic process was significantly impacted by the Assembly’s dissolution. It infringed upon the people’s right to have their elected representatives represent them.
The Court noted that these kinds of measures need to be supported by solid arguments and shouldn’t be done recklessly. The Court ruled that, unless there are extraordinary circumstances in which the Governor may use his discretion, the Governor shall act on the recommendation of the Council of Ministers, which is presided over by the Chief Minister. In this instance, the Court determined that the Governor had dissolved the Assembly without providing sufficient justification and without giving the Council of Ministers’ advice adequate consideration.
The Supreme Court responded to the case by providing guidelines to ensure a democratic and equitable dissolution procedure, rather than merely repealing it. The Court directed that the measures taken be reviewed and provide guidelines for handling such cases going forward. The ruling made clear how important it is for democratic institutions to uphold constitutional values. It emphasised that justice and legitimacy standards should govern the dissolution of the Assembly rather than being used as a tool for political manoeuvring. It also includes some of the implications about the case for the functioning of state governments and role of the governor in india. The case made clear how crucial it is to preserve the democratic process’ integrity. It emphasised the need for decisions that have an impact on how elected institutions operate to be made clearly and with adequate justification.
The choice influenced India’s interaction about accountability and governance. It reaffirmed the need that constitutional authorities operate within their assigned boundaries and within established rules and regulations. The elected members should ensure and maintain the transparency to the public upfront. The Rameshwar Prasad case had an enormous effect on India’s election process since it highlighted the President’s authority in particular circumstances and raised concerns about how political variables and constitutional values combine to stop the executive branch from misusing the authority given in it by Article 356 of the Constitution.
However, a separate statute outlining the precise grounds on which the executive’s discretion is to be exercised must be implemented rather than a one-size-fits-all formula. According to the majority view, the President ought to have waited longer, held more evaluations, and prompted the Cabinet for reconsideration before signing the dissolution order. Well within permissible boundaries considered (even by the perpetually impeached Chief Executive) to be entrenched procent in our constitutional design, It is significant as it emphasises how important it should be for one to adhere to constitutional procedures and how diligent he or she has got to apply its mind before resorting in dissolving a legislative assembly. Both examples demonstrate how crucial judicial review is to preserving the checks and balances included in the Indian constitutional system.
In Kihoto Hollohan, the Supreme Court ruled that judicial review is available for the Speaker’s decisions made in accordance with the Tenth Schedule. “The Court also examined the Governor’s decision to dissolve the Assembly in the Rameshwar Prasad case”. The question of whether measures performed by constitutional powers were constitutional was raised in both cases. Kihoto Hollohan investigated whether the Anti-Defection Law was constitutional, while Rameshwar Prasad looked closely at the Governor’s decree dissolving the Assembly.
The Governor in Rameshwar Prasad and the Speaker in Kihoto Hollohan are two examples of constitutional authority that highlight the functions and bounds of power in the Indian democratic system. All of these instances highlight the judiciary’s responsibility to protect fundamental rights and make sure that constitutional authorities operate within the confines of the law. It also involves the case of State of Rajasthan v Union of India. The question in this case was the reach of Article 356 judicial review of the President’s proclamation. According to the Supreme Court, judicial review of the President’s decision to issue the proclamation is still possible.
If the declaration is founded on erroneous justifications or malicious intent, the court may step in. This case highlights the judiciary’s responsibility to guarantee that Article 356 is used arbitrarily and that it is examined by judges to prevent the executive from abusing its authority. Such a challenge to the impugned proclamation has necessarily to succeed when seen from the facts of this case in relation to the extent and sweep of judicial review, as may be also inferred from above quoted which being an exposition of majority decision making in Bommai’s case [(1994 SCC (6) 194 ]. So it applied “directly” to the very litigation which was against a governmental action. Nor an iota of any suspicion on corruption or horse trading should arise just because a few MLAs voices whom one hears may prove sweet to the ears.
About their leader’s public position, and strayed from that in politics to back the formation of a government led by another party. We know that the governments of minorities in their own states. It is also recognised that the Governor can refuse an invitation to form a government if he or she satisfies himself/herself from indications available, unsupported by any secure majority in all probability that it would be possible for no political party likely have a command support upon reassembling so as accede to one day and give solace stability of stable government address issues. In Bommai, it was found that the reports of the governors were clearly based on relevant material and after proper verification disclosed that State Governments failed totally in protecting its citizens/property from internal disturbances. Kates v. Council of the City of Westland, in which a unanimous Court again upheld the legality of that Proclamation with respect to its facial compliance or noncompliance with precepts drawn from the then-existing state constitution.
Misuse of Article 356: Before Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India Case
Article 356 (Imposition of President Rule) was borrowed from The Government of India Act, 1935. It was Section 93 of the Act that provided similar provisions of this Article in respect of the Governor of a province. It was first used in India in Punjab in June 1951. Since then Independence of India in 1947 and the adoption of our Constitution of India in the year 1950 till now the President’s Rule has been imposed for 134 times in the country.
Image 1: Number of times the President’s Rule was imposed every year till the year 2016
In the start early after the adoption of the Constitution of India in 1950, President’s Rule was used to address serious issues like the breakdown in law and order and political instability. As time passed by and politics got more heated in the country especially during 1960’s to 1980’s this President’s Rule started being more used and often it was under questionable circumstances. It was used as a political tool by the governments. Between 1971 and 1990, it was used for 63 times. Former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi used Article 356 for 27 times and in retaliation to this the Janta Government when formed for the first time removed nine state governments. When Indira Gandhi returned to power in 1980, she removed 9 state governments at one go. From the above information, we can come to the conclusion that Article 356 was exploited by the ruling parties so much that the actual intention behind that article was being violated. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was already a little hesitant regarding this article because this can be misused by the Central government and it actually did get misused and exploited by many ruling parties. Below is the table of data of showing the information on number of times prime minister’s imposed the President’s during their term.
Image 2 : Number of times President Rule was imposed by each Prime Minister During their term
S.R. Bommai V. Union of India, 1994
But this scenario in the country was mainly changed because of the Landmark Judgment of S. R. Bommai V Union of India 1994. This was the major judgment regarding the misuse of Article 356 by the political parties with political motives, this case can be referred as the turning point in the imposition of Article 356. If we refer to the data given in Image 1 we can see that from 1994 to 2016 President Rule was only imposed 21 times. Which if we compare to the last 3 decades’ data the imposition of Article 365 has drastically reduced and the credit goes to the judgment in S. R. Bommai V. Union of India.
This judgment gives clarity on the scope and limitations the Article 356. The 9 Judge bench in their judgement said the article should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. The Supreme Court ruled that the use of the President’s Rule was not beyond judicial scrutiny. It established that the President’s decision to impose this rule could be reviewed by the courts and that the majority in a state assembly should be tested on the floor of the House, not decided by the Governor alone.
This case set important guidelines, but despite the judgment, there were still instances where the President’s Rule was imposed under controversial circumstances.
After the judgement of Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India
Despite the S. R. Bommai judgment, same situation occurred in the State of Bihar and that led to another landmark case in imposition of Article 365 which was Rameshwar Prasad V . Union of India. The 5 Judge bench led by then CJI Y K Sabharwal delivered the judgment. The court held that the President’s proclamation of dissolving the State Assembly was unconstitutional. This case was significant because it reaffirmed the principles laid down in the S.R. Bommai case and further stopped the misuse of Article 356.
This judgment although did not make any changes in laws or the constitution, it really did help in setting a precedent that influenced many legal decisions and ensured that any use of Article 356 would be scrutinized with due care ensuring that it aligned with the constitutional principles. Now central government is required to provide substantial evidence and justification when they want to impose presidential rule in any state. This makes it difficult to misuse the article 365 anymore. This case played a crucial role in reinforcing that checks and balances are necessary in a democratic state to maintain the federal structure, by enforcing the need for judicial oversight and curbing the arbitrary use of Article 356. It ensured that use of Article 356 would be more transparent, accountable, and in line with the constitutional principles.
This case was also cited in many cases like Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix V. Deputy Speaker & Ors (2016)(Arunachal Pradesh Assembly dissolution case). This case dealt with the political crisis in Arunachal Pradesh which eventually led to the imposition of President’s Rule in the state. The Rameshwar Prasad judgment was cited in this case while discussing the scope of judicial review over the Governor’s discretion and the imposition of the President’s Rule.
Union of India v. Harish Chandra Rawat (2016) : This case was about the imposition of President’s Rule in the State of Uttarakhand. In the case, they referred to Rameshwar Prasad to reiterate the point that when the President’s Rule when imposed it must be based on justifiable grounds, and if there is any misuse of this power then that could be challenged through judicial review. The principles from Rameshwar Prasad were used to argue against the arbitrary use of 356, court emphasized the necessity of a proper constitutional basis for such actions.
Also in the Maharashtra political crisis of 2019, the issues centred Governor’s use of discretion and the unexpected swearing-in- in of Devendra Fadnavis as Chief Minister. The SC’s decision to order a floor test was taken from the cases of Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India. Although the entire focus was not on the case or was not explicitly mentioned, the court’s move to ensure a floor test showed the emphasis on upholding the integrity of the Constitution and preventing arbitrary use of the power, as highlighted in the Judgment of Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India.
Although there are not many changes because of the case of Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India. It reemphasized the same principles laid down in the case of S.R. Bommai v Union of India. The principles were strongly laid down in this case and the misuse of Article 365 was much more reduced in this case. This reinforced the principles very strongly and court’s also talked about the importance of judicial review.
CONCLUSION
As the case highlights the constitutional issues regarding the process of free and fair elections being held in a state and then on no visible basis of proof it being declared poorly conducted and regarded as being manipulated by giving incentives, this is violating the very purpose of Article 326 of the Indian Constitution, which talks about conducting of elections in a free and fair manner in accordance with the concept of Universal Adult Suffrage.
Hence, according to Article 356 of the Constitution of India, the proclamation of President’s Rule should be reasonable and not arbitrary only on the grounds of failure of constitutional machinery in the state.
Thus, the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly of Bihar and the proclamation of State Emergency by the President in the state was held unconstitutional by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India as the basis of the proclamation was not proven and there was no such evidences of the party manipulating the elections.
The case also highlights the power of Judicial Review of the Indian Courts to save the basic structure of the Constitution and its mechanisms in the country. It also ensures the proper functioning of the country and adherence to the provisions to the Constitution of India as well as to keep a check on the misuse of the powers provided by the Constitution to any authority of the country.
Further, the court’s emphasis on the upholding of the principles of the democratic governance and the Constitutional provisions highlights the Democratic principles governing the country and no arbitrariness in representation of the people as well as keeping the checks and balances as an important part of the democratic structure.
AUTHOR: VIDHI KAPOOR
References:
- Constitution of India. Art.174
- Constitution of India. Art.163
- Constitution of India. Art.356
- https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/rameshwar-prasad-vs-union-of-india-case-upsc-notes/
- https://www.drishtiias.com/to-the-points/Paper2/emergency-provisions
- Constitution of India. Art.365
- AIR 1994 SC 1918
- AIR 1993 SC 412
- AIR 1977 SC 1361
- https://legalvidhiya.com/rameshwar-prasad-v-union-of-india-air-2006-sc-980/
- https://www.lawdocs.in/listen-podcast/constitutional-case-law/rameshwar-prasad-v-uoi#:~:text=Facts%20of%20the%20case%3A%20On,position%20to%20form%20the%20government
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1582504/
- https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79280249/
- https://www.lawinsider.in/judgment/rameshwar-prasad-and-ors-v-union-of-india-2005
- https://www.mea.gov.in/Images/pdf1/Part19.pdf
- The Constitution of India, 1950; Article 356(1); 356. Provisions in case of failure of constitutional machinery in State(1)If the President, on receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise, is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by Proclamation-(a)assume to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor or any body or authority in the State other than the Legislature of the State;(b)declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament;(c)make such incidental and consequential provisions as appear to the President to be necessary or desirable for giving effect to the objects of the Proclamation, including provisions for suspending in whole or in part the operation of any provisions of this Constitution relating to any body or authority in the State
- (2006) 2 Supreme Court Cases 1
- The Constitution of India, 1950; Article 74; 74. Council of Ministers to aid and advise President(1)There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advice: Provided that the President may require the Council of Ministers to reconsider such advice; either generally or otherwise, and the President shall act in accordance with the advice tendered after such reconsideration.(2)The question whether any, and if so what, advice was tendered by Ministers to the President shall not be inquired into in any court.
- The Constitution of India, 1950; Article 326; 326. Elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assemblies of States to be on the basis of adult suffrage The elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage; that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than eighteen years of age on such date as may be fixed in that behalf by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election.
- https://lawessential.com/case-comments-1/f/rameshwar-prasad-ors-vs-union-of-india-anr-1?blogcategory=Case+Comments
- https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/657dbf14103fc43d1c69b547
- https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/Rameshwar-Prasad-Ors-v-s-Union-of-India-ANR–4131.asp
- https://legalserviceindia.com/article/l315-Bihar-Assembly-Dissolution-Case.html
- https://www.westlanddc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Code%20of%20Conduct%20-%20Elected%20Members%20-%20Adopted%20by%20Council%2024.11.16.pdf
- https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3730-article-356-proclamation-of-emergency-and-its-open-misuse-by-political-party.html
- https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-news-editorials/article-356/print_manually
- R.Bommai V Union of India 1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3) 1
- Nabam Rebia And Etc. Etc vs Deputy Speaker And Ors AIR 2016 SC 3209, 2016 (11) SCC 673
- Harish Chandra Singh Rawat vs Union Of India And Another AIR 2016 (NOC) 559 (UTR.), 2016 AIR CC 2455 (UTR)
Wish to read similar articles, click the link: https://jpassociates.co.in/the-climate-crisis-and-law/
