9911796707
|
Home
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment are: (a) Whether the President of India has unfettered powers to issue Proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution, dismiss State Governments, and dissolve State Legislative Assemblies; (b) Whether a Proclamation issued under Article 356(1) is amenable to judicial review and, if so, what is the scope and extent of such review; (c) The meaning and ambit of the expression "a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution" as used in Article 356(1); (d) The constitutional nature of the Indian federal structure and the implications of Article 356 on Centre-State relations; (e) The role and duties of the Governor in reporting to the President under Article 356; (f) The constitutional concept of secularism in India and its relevance to the exercise of power under Article 356; (g) The effect of parliamentary approval or disapproval of a Proclamation under Article 356(3) and the consequences of judicial invalidation of such Proclamations; (h) The justiciability of the President's satisfaction under Article 356(1) and the impact of Article 74(2) on judicial scrutiny of ministerial advice; (i) The validity of specific Proclamations issued in respect of the States of Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh; (j) The extent to which political parties may incorporate religious or communal elements in their programmes and the constitutional consequences thereof. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS (a) Nature and Scope of Presidential Power under Article 356(1) Article 356(1) empowers the President, on receipt of a report from the Governor or otherwise, to issue a Proclamation if satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution. The President may assume all or any functions of the Government or Governor, declare that the State Legislature's powers shall be exercisable by Parliament, and make incidental provisions, excluding powers vested in High Courts. The Court held that this power is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, only when the constitutional machinery in a State has failed. The term "cannot be carried on" connotes a situation of constitutional breakdown or impasse, not mere maladministration or minor infractions. The power is a conditioned power, not absolute; the satisfaction of the President must be based on relevant material. The Court rejected the notion that the President can assume only some functions of the Government while leaving the State Government in office, emphasizing that two Governments cannot coexist in the same sphere. The power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly is implicit in Article 356(1)(a), but its exercise is subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament under Article 356(3). Dissolution prior to such approval is invalid. (b) Justiciability and Judicial Review of Proclamation under Article 356(1) The Court unanimously held that Proclamations under Article 356(1) are subject to judicial review, but the scope is limited. The President's satisfaction is subjective and political in nature, often involving imponderables and fast-changing situations lacking judicially manageable standards. Therefore, courts should exercise restraint and not substitute their judgment for that of the President or the Union Council of Ministers. Judicial review is available to examine whether:
The Court emphasized that the adequacy or correctness of the material cannot be questioned, only its relevance. The deletion of the finality clause (Article 356(5)) by the 44th Amendment reinforced the availability of judicial review. Article 74(2), which bars inquiry into the advice given by Ministers to the President, does not prevent courts from scrutinizing the material on which such advice was based. The material is distinct from the advice itself and may be subject to judicial examination, subject to claims of privilege under the Evidence Act. In cases where a strong prima facie case is made out, courts may issue discovery orders to compel production of material, to be examined in camera. Interim relief, such as injunctions restraining fresh elections, may be granted to prevent frustration of judicial review, but courts will not stay the issuance or operation of the Proclamation itself. (c) Federal Character of the Indian Constitution and Centre-State Relations The Court analyzed the Indian Constitution's federal structure, describing it as "quasi-federal" with a strong bias towards the Centre. Unlike the United States, Indian States are not sovereign entities; Parliament has power to alter State boundaries, create or abolish States, and amend the Constitution to curtail State powers. Executive and legislative powers are distributed, but the Union enjoys residuary powers and financial predominance. The Constitution envisages a single citizenship, an integrated judiciary, and a strong Centre to maintain national unity and integrity. Article 355 imposes a duty on the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure constitutional governance. Article 356 is a mechanism to enforce this duty in case of failure of constitutional machinery. The Court emphasized that States are constitutional entities with independent existence and that the exercise of Article 356 power must preserve the federal balance and democratic principles. (d) Role and Duties of the Governor The Governor is a vital constitutional functionary and a link between the Union and the States. He is expected to act impartially and with constitutional responsibility, reporting to the President when the constitutional machinery in the State has failed. The Court held that the Governor's report forms the basis of the President's satisfaction under Article 356(1). The Governor must verify facts, explore possibilities of alternative governments, and recommend President's Rule only as a last resort. The practice of bypassing a floor test to determine majority support is improper and contrary to democratic principles. (e) Concept of Secularism under the Constitution Secularism is a basic feature of the Indian Constitution, though the word was explicitly added to the Preamble only by the 42nd Amendment. The Court traced the historical and philosophical foundations of secularism in India, emphasizing equal treatment of all religions by the State, freedom of conscience and religion, and the prohibition of State patronage of any particular religion. Secularism entails separation of religion from the secular activities of the State. The State maintains neutrality and ensures equality, liberty, and fraternity among all citizens regardless of religion. Political parties and Governments must abide by this constitutional mandate and not mix religion with politics. The Court held that acts or policies of a State Government that subvert or sabotage secularism can be grounds for invoking Article 356. (f) Effect of Parliamentary Approval or Disapproval of Proclamation Article 356(3) requires every Proclamation to be laid before both Houses of Parliament and ceases to operate after two months unless approved by resolutions of both Houses. The Court held that:
The Court rejected the view that the Assembly and Government do not revive even if Parliament disapproves the Proclamation, holding that such a view would render the parliamentary check ineffective and violate parliamentary supremacy. (g) Validity of Specific Proclamations Karnataka: The Governor's report was based on letters from legislators withdrawing support, some of which were later retracted. The Governor did not verify these retractions or permit a floor test. The Court held the Governor's report and the consequent Proclamation mala fide and unconstitutional, as it bypassed the constitutional forum of the Assembly for testing majority. Meghalaya: The Governor ignored Supreme Court orders and the votes of certain MLAs, allowed the Speaker to act contrary to the Court's directions, and recommended dismissal. The Proclamation was held prima facie invalid and mala fide, but no relief was granted as fresh elections had been held. Nagaland: The Governor's report was based on allegations of a party split and political machinations without allowing the claimant to prove majority on the floor. The Proclamation was held unconstitutional for failure to allow floor test and for being based on unverified and partisan material. Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh: Following the demolition of the Babri Masjid, the BJP Governments in these States were dismissed and Assemblies dissolved. The Governors' reports indicated law and order breakdown, political leadership's support to banned organizations, and failure to implement bans. The Court held these Proclamations valid, as the material before the President was relevant and the situation was extraordinary, involving breach of secularism, a basic feature of the Constitution. (h) Role of Political Parties and Religion in Politics The Court emphasized that political parties must bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, including its basic features of secularism and democracy. Mixing religion with politics or espousing religious or communal platforms violates constitutional mandates and renders parties and Governments amenable to action under Article 356. Manifestos or actions that subvert secularism, promote communal disharmony, or incite violence are unconstitutional. The Court held that the BJP's election manifestos and conduct, including the campaign for construction of Ram Temple and the events leading to the Babri Masjid demolition, constituted a breach of secularism justifying the dismissal of the Governments in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The validity of the Proclamation issued by the President under Article 356(1) is judicially reviewable to the extent of examining whether it was issued on the basis of any material at all or whether the material was relevant or whether the Proclamation was issued in the mala fide exercise of the power." "Article 74(2) is not a bar against the scrutiny of the material on the basis of which the President had arrived at his satisfaction." "Since the provisions contained in clause (3) of Article 356 are intended to be a check on the powers of the President under clause (1) thereof, it will not be permissible for the President to exercise powers under sub-clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the latter clause, to take irreversible actions till at least both the Houses of Parliament have approved of the Proclamation." "If the Proclamation issued is held invalid, then notwithstanding the fact that it is approved by both Houses of Parliament, it will be open to the court to restore the status quo ante to the issuance of the Proclamation and hence to restore the Legislative Assembly and the Ministry." "Secularism is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The acts of a State Government which are calculated to subvert or sabotage secularism as enshrined in our Constitution, can lawfully be deemed to give rise to a situation in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution." "The satisfaction reached by the President for issuing the Proclamation under Article 356 must be tested only on those grounds of unconstitutionality, but not on the grounds that the material which enabled him to reach the satisfaction was not sufficient or inadequate." "The President shall exercise the power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly only after the Proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament under clause (3) and not before. Until such approval, the President can only suspend the Legislative Assembly by suspending the provisions of Constitution relating to the Legislative Assembly." "The Governor should normally leave the test of confidence in the Ministry to a vote in the Assembly and should not decide the question himself except in extraordinary situations where a free vote is not possible." "The power under Article 356 is not an absolute power to be exercised at the President's whim but a conditioned power based on relevant material and satisfaction formed in good faith." "The political party or organisation which mixes religion with politics or espouses unsecular policies violates the basic features of the Constitution and is amenable to action under Article 356."
|
