Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

At 6 A. M. on 1st March, 1973 twentyone M. L. As intimated the Sneaker of their having resigned from the ruling Congress and of having joined the Prasati Party.

The respective strength of the ruling Congress and the Pragati party in the Legislature at 6 a. m. on 1st March. 1973 was as follows: 

   Congress (R)       -- 57
 Pragati Party     -- 68

On that very day four other M. L. As resigned from the ruling Congress and joined the Pragati Party whose strength increased to 72.

Out of 72 members of the Pragati party, two defected on that very day. At the time the Governor drew UP his report On 1st March, 1973 the strength of the Pragati party was 70 which constituted an absolute majority in a house of 139 excluding the Speaker.

4. The main grounds of attack of the petitioners may be noticed in brief:

(i) The Governor in his report has accepted the position that the Pragati party had a strength of 70 in a House of 140. The President has accepted this report on assessment of the strength of the Pragati party by the Governor and on that basis has issued the Proclamation. Excluding the Speaker as prescribed in the second proviso to Article 179 a strength of 70 in a House of 139 constitutes absolute majority. Since the leader of the Pragati party requested the Governor to be called upon to form the Government no situation had arisen in which a Government could not have been formed and carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
(v) The Proclamation was issued not because the pragati party did not command absolute majority in the Legislature but because a Government formed by the Pragati party would not be stable and would not last long. In other words, President's Rule was imposed on the State on the assumption that there was a likelihood of a situation arising in future in which the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
(vi) The concept of a particular leader commanding majoritv in a Legislature in not being allowed to constitute the ministry on the apprehension that it is not likely to be stable is alien to Article 356. Such a construction would have the effect of conferring powers on the Union Government to completely supersede and frustrate State autonomy and federalism provided for in the Constitution. If such an interpretation is accepted, by the exercise of the powers under Article 356 of the Constitution any Political party in power at the Centre can assume to itself unfettered dictatorial Powers by Preventing formation of a Government by any other political party in any State. Such an interpretation would facilitate establishment of dictatorship.