RAMESHWAR PRASAD VS UNION OF INDIA : CASE SUMMARY
The Supreme Court in Rameshwar Prasad Vs Union of India (2006) 1 SCR 562 held that Legislative Assembly can be dissolved even before its first meeting but in this case dissolution was malafide and unconstitutional.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Election for Legislative Assembly for Bihar was notified by Election Commission on 17th December, 2004. In the said election none of coalition/parties got majority and as such none of them was in position to form government. On the report of the Governor, President Rule was imposed under Article 356 and Legislative Assembly was kept in suspended animation. Later on another report of the Governor to the effect that efforts are made to win over elected representatives by allurement by political parties, the President dissolved the Legislative Assembly which was in suspended animation vide proclamation dated 23rd May, 2005.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
Following important issues were considered by the Supreme Court in this matter.
(i) Whether Legislative Assembly of a State can be dissolved without its first meeting taking place ?
It has been contended by the Petitioners that Legislative Assembly is only constituted after its first meeting when members subscribe oath or affirmation under Article 188.
The Court noted that Section 73 of Representation of People Act, 1951 provides that when a general elections for Legislative Assembly or House of the People takes place, the Election Commission has to notify in official gazette result of elections in all constituencies and upon such notification Legislative Assembly or the House of the People is deemed to be constituted.
In the present case notification has been issued under Section 73 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 on 4th March, 2005. The deemed constitution of the Legislative Assembly was done on that very date. The Court noted that constitution of Legislative Assembly is different from duration of Legislative Assembly.
The Supreme Court held that the Legislative Assembly of State can be dissolved before the first meeting.
(ii) Whether proclamation dated 23rd May, 2005 dissolving the Legislative Assembly is illegal and unconstitutional ?
The Court noted the role of Governor in light of Sarkaria Commission report and S R Bommai Vs Union of India (1994 AIR 1918) Judgment. The Court observed that Governor is charged with the duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and obligation to preserve democracy and not to permit the canker of political defection to tear into the vitals of the Indian democracy.
The Court observed that in this case there was no material on record regarding blatant distortion of democracy by induced defections through unfair, illegal, unethical, and unconstitutional means. The approach of the Governor was to prevent a political party to stake claim. Such a course is wholly illegal, irregular and mala fide.
In State of Rajasthan Vs Union of India (1977) 3SCC 592 it was held that judicial review of imposition of President Rule can be done on the ground that power has been exercised malafide or that power has bene exercised on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds. The Supreme Court in S R Bommai case concurred with view taken in State of Rajasthan and enlarged the scope of judicial review.
The Supreme Court observed like S R Bommai Case in this case also there is no material whatsoever except ipse dixit of the Governor. The action of preventing a political party to stake claim will be destructive of democratic fabric.
The Supreme Court held proclamation dated 23rd May, 2005 to be unconstitutional but did not issu directions for state quo ante in light of unclear mandate and fresh preparations made by the Election Commission.
(ii) What is scope of immunity granted to Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution?
The Supreme Court held that the personal immunity granted to Governor under Article 361 (1) is complete and there is no question of the President or Governor made answerable to the Court even on charges of mala fides. The President and Governor can file affidavit on volition but Court can not even direct them to file Affidavit. But Personal immunity granted to the President or the governor does not prevent the Court to examine actions which are challenged on ground of mala fides.
______________________________________________________________
Mukesh Kumar Suman is an advocate and legal author based at Delhi. He regularly appears before various Judicial Forums including NCLT, NCLAT, High Courts and the Supreme Court. He can be approached at mukesh_suman@outlook.com or +91 9717864570.
