State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (AIR 1977 SC 1361)

7/27/2019 State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (AIR 1977 SC 1361)

1/13

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India

(AIR 1977 SC 1361)


2/13

The Supreme Courts Judgement in 1977 in the case

of State of Rajasthan v Union of India brought bysome state governments against the Janatagovernments dissolution of state legislatures broke

new ground - The Tribune, (Mis)using Art.356, Nov 8, 1998

It upheld the courts right to strike down a

proclamation imposing Presidents rule if the action

was mala fide or based on extraneous or irrelevant

considerations, but, ordinarily the court would keepaway from political questions, in particular if itinvolves substituting its own judgement for that ofthe executive.


3/13

In the State of Rajasthan v. Union of India case, Chief Justice Beg, whileinterpreting Article 356, observed:

"Our difficulty is that the language of Article 356 is so wide and loose thatto circumscribe and confine it within a strait-jacket will not be justinterpreting or construing it but will be Constitution-making legislationwhich, again, does not, strictly speaking, lie in our domain.

At another place Chief Justice Beg has sounded a note of suggestion for thedevelopment of conventions for the exercise of power under Article 356and said:

"Undoubtedly, the subject is one on which appropriate and healthy

conventions should develop so that the power under Article 356(1) isneither exercised capriciously nor arbitrarily when a political situationcalls for its... And, it is not for courts to formulate, and much less to enforcea convention, however, necessary or just and proper to regulate theexercise of such an executive power. That is a matter entirely within the

executive field of operation."


4/13

The concept of bad faith eludes precise definition, but in

relation to the exercise of statutory powers it may be said tocomprise dishonesty (or fraud) and malice. A power isexercised fraudulently if its repository intends to achieve an

object other than that for which he believes the power to havebe been conferred. His intention may be to promote another

public interest or private interests. A power is exercisedmaliciously if its repository is motivated by personal

animosity towards those who are directly affected by itsexercise.

Prof. de Smith, Judicial Review of Adminstrative Action, 3rd

ed.


5/13

Facts:

In 1977The Congress Party was swept of Parliament, officeand power in the Lok Sabha Elections.

Nine States of India saw almost total rejection of Congress,however Congress ministries continued to function in these States.

Home Minister (Charan Singh) in a letter dated 18th

April, 1977which recommended that the Chief Minister call for thedissolution of the State Assemblies in their respective States.

Six states filed suits praying for a permanent injunction against

giving effect to the directive which threatened action underArt.356Three Writ Petitions filed by three members of the PunjabLegislative Assembly alleging infringement of their right to

property.


6/13

Preliminary Objection of Maintainabilityscope of Article 131

Disputes in the suits not between the Govt. of India and any stateas such, but between the Govt, of India and the State Governments.

Beg C.J.Even if there be some grounds for making the adistinction between a States interest and rights and those of its

Government or its members. I do not think that we need take a toorestrictive or hyper-technical view of the States right to sue for anyrights, actual or fancied, which the State Government chooses to takeup on behalf of the State concerned in a suit under Art. 131.

Goswami J. and Fazl Ali J. upheld the objection stating that adispute must affect the legal rights of the State and not those of theState Government.


7/13

Contentions of The Union Government

Is the determination of whether a situation has arisendemanding action under Art.356, is justiciable?The final action of President which is non-justiciable, cannot beindirectly assailed by challenging a process which might ormight not actually produce the apprehended result.

The Letter as well as the Law Ministers Statement broached

nothing outside the purview of Art.356 and therefore thePlaintiffs had no cause of action.

Mere intimation of facts does not justify prohibiting actionunder Art.356


8/13

Contentions of the State Governments

The Legislative Assemblies could not be dissolved unless thePresidents Proclamation had been approved by both Houses ofParliament.

Beg C.J. - Although it was obligatory to put a proclamation

issued under Art. 356 for the approval of each House ofParliament, there was nothing in Art.356 to make aconsideration by either House a condition precedent to theexercise of the power of dissolution of the State Legislative

Assemblies by the President under Art.356(1).

Art. 356(3) - Therefore action under Art. 356 not illegal for thatreason alone.


9/13

Submission that the threat of dissolution of State LegislativeAssemblies by the Union Govt. was mala fide.

Plaintiffs alleged mala fides in the sense that the threatenedexercise of power was for a purpose for which the power wasnot conferred.

Dominant purpose

Although the point was made, and noted by the Court, that thereasons given in the letter and the Law Ministers Statement may

not be the only reasons on which the Ministry may advise thePresident to issue a Proclamation under Art.356, the reasonsactually giventogether with the facts of which the Courtcould take judicial noticewere examined by the judges to see

whether they established a case of mala fide exercise of power.


10/13

Reasons given in the letter:

1. Unprecedented political situation had arisen by thevirtual rejection, in the recent Lok Sabha elections, ofcandidates belonging to the ruling party in variousStates

2. The resultant climate of uncertainty was such as tocause grave concern

3. The situation had created a sense of diffidence atdifferent levels of administration

4. People at large did not appreciate the propriety ofcontinuance in power of a party which wasunmistakably rejected by the electorate.

5. The climate of uncertainty, diffidence and disrespecthad given rise to serious threats to law and order


11/13

Fazl Ali J.Thus summarizing the position in short, it isclear

1. That grave emergency was clamped in the wholecountry

2. That civil liberties were withdrawn to a great extent3. That important fundamental rights of the people were

suspended4. That strict censorship on the press was placed5. That the judicial powers were crippled to a large extent.


12/13

On the above facts, viewed against the backgroundof facts summarized by Fazl Ali J., the question

before the Court was, if the President was satisfiedthat action under Art.356 was called for, and thatthe Legislative Assemblies be dissolved and fresh

elections ordered, could such a conclusion be said tobe unreasonable or one based on extraneous

conditions? The Court rightly answered the questionwith a clear No.


13/13

Constitution - presidential rule - Articles

131 and 356 of Constitution of India -

imposition of presidential rule under Article

356 in various States challenged -

presidential rule imposed on ground that

Legislatures in these States no longer

represented wishes of electorate -

contention that said ground was outside

scope of Article 356 and that Parliament's

ratification was essential - respondent

contended that suit under Article 131 wasnot maintainable as dispute was of political

character - Apex Court opined that

satisfaction of President under Article 356

could not be questioned - President does

not always act on report of Governor - his

satisfaction can be based on material otherthan Governor's report - where satisfaction

was mala fide or based on totally

extraneous circumstances Courts can

examine the same as in that case there

would be no satisfaction of President -

healthy convention should be developedthat power under Article 356 is neither

State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (AIR 1977 SC 1361)

Documents

Transcript of State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (AIR 1977 SC 1361)