Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. vs Union of India and Anr.
- ByPravleen Kaur --
- 05 May 2025 --
- 0 Comments
I. Introduction
The judgment deals with multiple writ petitions filed challenging the constitutionality, legality, and validity of the Union of India's Notification GSR 333(E), which ordered the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly. The petitions were filed by members of the dissolved Legislative Assembly under Article 32 of the Constitution. The challenges question the legitimacy of the Governor's report leading to the dissolution, arguing that it was based on unfair and tainted means, resulting in a minority government. The Governor's actions have been condemned as biased and unsupported by the believable speed and diligence of the President's approval. [Paragraph 1]
II. Background
A. Election Results and Party Positions
Based on the election results, no single party or alliance could secure a majority of 122 seats in the 243-member Legislative Assembly. The Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) and its alliance had 75 seats, while the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) comprising the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Janata Dal (United) had a total of 92 seats. Other parties and independents held the remaining seats. [Paragraph 2]
B. Governor's Actions
The Chief Minister, Smt. Rabri Devi, resigned, and the Governor accepted her resignation. [Paragraph 3] Various political parties and independent MLAs met the Governor, expressing their unwillingness to support either the RJD or the NDA in forming the government. [Paragraphs 4-8]
The RJD staked a claim to form the government with support from multiple parties, but they did not have enough support to meet the minimum requirement. [Paragraph 9] The NDA delegation also met the Governor, claiming support from 10 independents, but they did not submit any authorization letter, and even with the claimed support, they would fall short of the majority mark. [Paragraph 10]
C. Governor's Recommendation
After consulting legal experts and case laws, including the Sarkaria Commission's recommendations, the Governor concluded that no political party or coalition could claim a majority in the Legislative Assembly. He stated that there was a complete inability for any political party to form a stable government commanding the confidence of the majority members, resulting in a failure of constitutional machinery. [Paragraphs 12-13]
The Governor recommended keeping the Constituent Assembly in suspended animation and requested the President to take appropriate action. [Paragraph 15]
III. Concerns Raised
The petitions raised concerns about the increasing instability of elected governments due to unprincipled and opportunistic political realignments, undermining democracy. They highlighted the trend of attempting to influence elected representatives and party members with allurements like money and posts, which could distort the verdict of the people and tamper with constitutional provisions. [Paragraphs 3-6]
IV. Judicial Review and Bias
The judgment discusses the scope of judicial review and the principles for adjudging the validity of an action based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority. It cites the Bommai case, which held that the principles for adjudging the validity of an action based on the subjective satisfaction of the authority do not entirely apply to the exercise of constitutional power under Article 356. [Paragraph 34]
The judgment also examines the issue of bias and the circumstances under which a judge may be disqualified from a case. It cites the Pinochet case and the Locabail case, which provide guidance on the factors that may give rise to a real danger of bias and the need to decide the issue based on the facts of each individual case. [Paragraphs 30-33]
V. Role of Governors and Constitutional Provisions
The judgment delves into the role of Governors in Union-State relations and the provisions of the Constitution related to the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356. It discusses the historical context, the debates in the Constituent Assembly, and the recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission. [Paragraphs 49, 93]
The judgment highlights the importance of conventions and the need for the Governor to maintain the constitutional machinery in the State. It emphasizes the role of elected representatives and the functioning of political parties in upholding the Constitution. [Paragraph 93]
VI. Conclusion
The court dismissed the writ applications, referring to Article 172 of the Constitution and Section 73 of the R.P. Act, which argue that the Legislative Assembly had been constituted and there was no bar on its dissolution. The court also discussed the power to limit the temporal effect of an administrative decision. [Paragraph 56]
RELATED Blog
0 comments