The Supreme Court of India rendered a historic decision in the rameshwar prasad vs union of india case. The issue concerned the governor’s authority to become involved in a party’s internal affairs, specifically with regard to directing a floor test. Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud led a five-judge bench that heard the case.
rameshwar prasad vs union of india Case Facts
- The constitutionality of the notification that ordered the dissolution of the State of Bihar’s Legislative Assembly is contested in these cases. This case is distinct from others since previous instances involved orders for Assemblies to be dissolved on the grounds that the House no longer had faith in the ruling parties.
- The current case is unique in that the Legislative Assembly was ordered to dissolve before its first meeting on the grounds that attempts are being made to use illegal means to garner a majority and assert their right to form the State government. If these attempts continue, it would be considered tampering with constitutional provisions.
- A notification under article 356 of the indian constitution imposing President’s authority over the State of Bihar was issued because no political party was able to form a government, and paused animation was applied to the Assembly.
- On the same day, another notification was released, among other things, indicating that the Governor of Bihar may also exercise the powers that the President may exercise, subject to the President’s supervision, guidance, and control.
- The Election Commission announced that there would be new elections in the state. Since it would likely take some time to render a decision with specific justifications, the Court issued the following succinct order:
- The Proclamation of May 23, 2005, which dissolved the State of Bihar’s Legislative Assembly, is unconstitutional.
- The present case does not warrant an order under discretionary jurisdiction to restore the Legislative Assembly to its pre-proclamation state, when it was kept in suspended animation, notwithstanding the unconstitutionality of the contested Proclamation, given the facts and circumstances of the case.
rameshwar prasad vs union of india Issues
- Is it legal to dissolve the Legislative Assembly in accordance with Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution before to its first meeting?
- Was the proclamation to dissolve the Bihar Assembly on May 23, 2005, unlawful and unconstitutional?
- What immunity does the Governor receive under article 361 of the indian constitution?
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- It is improper to abuse the dissolution authority to thwart a political party’s lawful attempt to establish a government with the backing of other parties.
- The purpose of suspending the assembly was to give political parties time to consider the possibility of forming a majority government. Following the completion of the realignment process, which guaranteed the support of over 135 MLAs for the NDA led by Shri Nitish Kumar, the Governor promptly communicated the situation to the Cabinet in a midnight meeting with the aim of averting the formation of the Bihar government.
- According to article 356 of the indian constitution, the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly of Bihar was a flagrant abuse of authority and ought to be overturned.
Respondent:
- The dissolution of the Bihar State Legislative Assembly is a legitimate and constitutional move.
- Only after exhausting all other options and concluding that no political party or coalition of parties could credibly assert a majority in the Legislative Assembly did the Governor of the State of Bihar ask the President of India to take the necessary action.
- According to Article 361 (1) of the Indian Constitution, the Governor is immune from prosecution and is not liable to any court for using his official authority or carrying out any act that he does or purports to carry out while using his authorities and responsibilities.
rameshwar prasad vs union of india Judgment
It was decided that the Legislative Assembly’s dissolution was unconstitutional. The argument that the president’s directive meets the requirements of being unconstitutional won the case by a 3:2 vote. The specific issues-based judgments were: –
- A proclamation issued pursuant to article 356 of the indian constitution may be subject to limited judicial review. Judicial review may only be used when an authority is used dishonestly or for wholly unnecessary or irrelevant purposes. Strict application of the judicial review rules that govern challenges to administrative actions is not possible.
- Section 361’s protection does not stop the Court from considering the action’s legitimacy, even if it is done with malicious intent.
- If the stance taken is wholly at odds with the opinions of individuals who would be affected by the action, a public interest litigation cannot be heard. The public interest litigation will be dropped in this instance.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
