Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. V. Union of India (2005)

Citation: Rameshwar Prasad and Ors. Vs. Union of India, SC/0880/2005

Date of Judgment: 07.10.2005

Equivalent Citations: 2005 (35) AIC 15, AIR 2005 SC 4301, 2005 (61) ALR 619

Case No.: 255, 257, 258 and 353 of 2005.

Case Type: Writ Petition

Petitioner: Rameshwar Prasad and Ors.

Defendant: Union of India and Ors.

Bench:

• Hon’ble Justice Y.K. Sabharwal,
• Hon’ble Justice K.G. Balakrishnan,
• Hon’ble Justice B.N. Agrawal,
• Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhan
• Hon’ble Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat.

Court: The Supreme Court of India

Statues referred:

• The Constitution of India, 1950; Articles- 174, 356 and 361.
• Representation of the People Act, 1951; Section 73.

Cases referred:

• Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillhu and Ors.
• S.R. Bommai and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors, etc.

Facts:

• The General Elections to the Legislative Assembly of Bihar were held in February, 2005.
• The results of elections were announced on 04th March, 2005.
• The Bihar Assembly consists of 243 total seats and a party to come into power & form the government requires to cross mark of 122 seats.
• There was No party or coalition of the parties which was in position to secure 122 seats in the assembly.
• In exercise of powers under Article 356 of Indian Constitution, The State of Bihar was declared to be under President’ Rule and the Assembly was suspended.
• PIL in Supreme Court was filed challenging the constitutional validity of the President’s Rule.

Issues involved:

• Whether order of dismissing the Bihar Legislative Assembly and imposing presidential Rule unconstitutional?

Contention of Petitioner:

The Counsels for the Petitioner contended that:

• The power of dissolution should not be misused to obstruct the legitimate attempt of a political party, with the support of others, to form a government.

• The assembly was suspended with the intention of allowing political parties the opportunity to explore the formation of a majority government. Once the realignment process was completed, ensuring that the NDA, led by Shri Nitish Kumar, had the backing of over 135 MLAs, the Governor swiftly reported the situation to the Cabinet in a midnight meeting to prevent the government’s formation in Bihar.

• The dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly of Bihar was a blatant abuse of power under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution and should be nullified.

Contention of Defendant:

The Counsels on the behalf of Union of India contended that:

• The impugned action of dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly of Bihar is valid and constitutional.
• The Governor of the State of Bihar had explored all the possibilities and was satisfied that no political party or coalition of parties was able to substantiate a claim of majority in the Legislative Assembly, and only then he requested the President of India to take appropriate action, as required.
• The Governor, under Article 361 (1) of Indian Constitution, enjoys immunity and is not answerable to any court for his exercise and performance of the powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in exercise and performance of those powers and duties.

Judgment:

The court held the proclamation dissolving the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bihar is unconstitutional.

Ratio decidendi:

• The Supreme Court emphasized the Governor’s role in maintaining impartiality and refraining from disqualifying members of the Legislative Assembly.
• The Union Council of Ministers should have scrutinized the Governor’s report more thoroughly before accepting it and issuing the Proclamation.
• Proclamation issued under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution is subject to judicial review.

Conclusion:

Drafted By: Devanshi Saxena, Manipal University, Jaipur

Edited By: Bharti Verma, Associate Editor at Law Insider

Published on: October 13, 2023 at 09:35 IST