- If yes, what is the scope of judicial review in this respect?
- What is the meaning of the expression ‘A situation has arisen in which the Government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the constitution ‘’ used in Art. 356(1)?
- R Bommai vs. Union of India (misuse of Article 356(1))
1994 AIR 1918, 1994 SCC (3),1, JT 1994 (2)215, 1994 SCALE (2)37
Judgment by – Bench comprising of 9 judges.
Judgment
The Court set aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and restored the dismissed state government of Karnataka and Meghalaya, declaring that the proclamations issued in both the states are unconstitutional. The proclamations issued for the states of Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan were not declared unconstitutional. The Court also issued appropriate directives in relation to the proclamation issued for the State of Nagaland.
Ratio decidendi
The court held that “the exercise of power by the President under Article 356(1) to issue Proclamation is subject to the judicial review at least to the extent of examining whether the conditions precedent to the issuance of the Proclamation have been satisfied or not. This examination will necessarily involve the scrutiny as to whether there existed material for the satisfaction of the President that a situation had arisen in which the Government of the State could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.”
It also held that “the President has no power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly of the State by using his power under Art. 356(1) till the Proclamation is approved by both the Houses of Parliament under clause (3) of the said article. He may have power only to suspend the Legislative Assembly under sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of the said article.” Hence, it can be said that clause (3) keeps the powers of the President in check.
Secondly, the court has the power to overrule the Proclamation issued by the President whether it is approved by Parliament or not. This will mean that the courts also have the power to restore the status quo and, therefore, “to restore the Council of Ministers and the Legislative Assembly as they stood on the date of the issuance of the Proclamation.” In other words, the proclamation comes under the purview of Judicial Review. When called upon, the Union of India has to produce the material on the basis of which action was taken. The courts also stated that they do not agree with the opinion given in State of Rajasthan judgment, hence overruling it by this judgement.
The Court supported the finding of the Sarkaria Commission by endorsing the guidelines given in its report, including the issuance of “warning to the errant State that it is not carrying on the government of the State in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution” (except in cases of urgency), along with other procedural recommendations.
If the Ministry of State resigns or dismissed or loses majority then Governor can’t advise President to impose President’s Rule until enough measures are taken by Governor for formation an alternative Government. The court will have the liberty to provide a suitable relief according to the facts of the case and the political circumstances of the time and declare as void action taken by the president till date.
The court also reiterated that, “Secularism is one of the basic features of the Constitution. Any State Government which pursues unsecular policies or unsecular course of action acts contrary to the Constitutional mandate and renders itself amenable to action under Article 356.”
This is just a summarized version of the judgement; the author claims no right on the same. For better understanding refer to the original judgement.
Author: Priyanshi Tiwari
Oriental University, Indore BA.LLB III Year
