Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The State of Bihar calls the letter a "directive' and asks for the declaration that it is "unconstitutional and void". it also prays for a declaration that a refusal by the Chief Minister of Bihar to comply with it "cannot be made the basis for the issue of proclamation under Article, 356, of the Constitution". 'It also seeks a declaration that Arti- cle 356 of the Constitution "cannot be invoked for the sole purpose of dissolving the State Legislative Assembly and holding fresh elections for the said Assembly after the defeat of the majority party- in the said Assembly in the elections for the Lok Sabha".

The State of Himachal Pradesh prays for eight declarations :

firstly, that "the Council of Ministers of the State is not liable to resign and the Legislative Assembly of the plaintiff is not liable to be dissolved on the ground that the Congress Party, which holds a majority in the Legislative Assembly, had lost in the Lok Sabha elections and the Janata Party has come into power at the centre"; secondly, that "the Executive ,of the Defendant is not entitled to encroach upon the sole prerogative of the Council of Ministers as to the nature of the advice which the 'latter thinks fit to render to the Governor"; thirdly, that "the provisions ,of Article 356 of the Constitution are not liable to be invoked by the President merely because the Political party which has been returned to power in the Lok Sabha elections happens to be different from the party which holds majority in the Legislative Assembly of the plaintiff and which might have lost heavily in the' said Lok Sabha elections"; fourthly, that "the Legislative, Assembly of the plaintiff is not liable to be dissolved before the expiry of the term under the Constitution because the views of the electorate, have an undergone a change as stated in the letter. of the defendant's Home Minister dated 18th April, 1977"; fifthly, that "'the circumstances mentioned in the letter do not constitute a threat to law and order, and, in, any case,- such a threat to law and order cannot form any constitutional basis for dissolution of the Legislative Assembly of the plaintiff"; sixthly, that "reasons and circumstances stated in the letter addressed by the defendant to the plaintiff's Chief Minister and the,resultant threatened action under Article 356 of the Constitution are Wholly unconstitutional and mala fide and that a proclamation issued on. the facts and circumstances of the present case, would be utterly void"; seventhly that the "condition precedent and prescribed in Article 356(1) of the Constitution, is non-existent"; eighthly, that "the Legislature of the plaintiff cannot be dissolved until and unless any proclamation issued under Article 356(1) of the Constitution, is ratified by both Houses of Parliament as envisaged by Article 356 (3) of the Constitution The State of Orissa asked 'for a declaration that the "directive" contained in, the letter of 18th April, 1977, is "Unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution"

Having considered the cases set out in the plaints and the petition before us, from every conceivable angle, I am unable to find (1) [1970] 2 S.C.R. 522.

(2) [1939] F.C.R. 124.

a cause of action for the grant of any injunction or a writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus against any of the Defendents Opposite parties.

In my opinion perhaps the technically more correct order, in the situation before us would have been, on the findings reached by me, one rejecting the plaints under Order XXIII, Rule 6 of the Rules of this Court, and rejecting the Writ Petitions in limine. Afterall, we had not proceeded beyond the stage of hearing certain preliminary objections put forward by Mr. Soli Sorabji, Additional Solicitor General to the maintainability of the suits and petitions before us. Although, we heard very full arguments on these preliminary objections, we did not even frame any issues which is done, under the provisions of Part III of the Rules of this Court, applicable to the exercise of the Original Jurisdiction of this Court, before we generally formally dismiss a suit. However, as the form in which we have already passed our orders, dismissing the suit and petitions, which was approved by us on 29th April, 1977, has substantially the same effect as the rejection of plaints for failure to disclose a triable cause of action, I concur in the orders already recorded. The parties will bear their own costs. CHANDRACHUD, J.-The Lok Sabha in which the Congress (R) had an overwhelming majority was dissolved on January 18, 1977 though under the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, it had another year to run out its extended term. Fresh elections were held to the Lok Sabha in March 1977 in which the ruling party lost its majority and went out of power which it had exercised since Independence. On March 24, 1977 the Janata party which secured the verdict of the electorate formed the new government at the Centre. This is an unprecedented event since, for the first time in the history of this country, the ruling party at the Centre is not in power in any of the federating States. On the date that the Janata party took office, the Congress (R) was in power in various States including Bihar. Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Punjab. Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.

Nevertheless, I would like to deal with 'lie contention raised by Mr. R. K. Garg on behalf of the writ petitioners that the proclamation issued by the President under Art. 356(1) of the Constitution cannot have any force and cannot be acted upon without the approval of both Houses of the Parliament. This contention is wholly misconceived. Article 356(1) empowers the President to issue a proclamation if, on receipt of a report from the, Governor of a State or otherwise, he is, satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Article 356(3) enjoins that every such proclamation shall be laid before each House of Parliament and shall, except where, it is a proclamation revoking a previous proclamation, cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. It, is impossible to hold in view of this express provision that the proclamation can have neither force nor validity until it is approved by the Parliament. The scheme of art. 356 is that the; proclamation issued under it will remain in operation for a period of two months in any event. If it is approved by resolutions of both the Houses of Parliament before the expiration of two months, its operation is extended for the period mentioned in clause (4) of art. 356. But whether or not it is so approved, the proclamation has an assured life for a period of two months and its validity during that period cannot be, whittled down by reading into art. 356 a condition precedent in the nature of parliamentary approval which, plainly, is not to be found therein. The proviso to clause (3) of art.. 356 makes this position clearer still. If the proclamation is issued at a time when the Lok Sabha is dissolved or its dissolution takes place during the period of two months, and the Rajya Sabha, but not the Lok Sabha, approves of the proclamation within two months, it ceases to operate at the expiration of thirty days from the date on which the reconstituted Lok Sabha first sits. If before the expiry of the aforesaid period of thirty days, the Lok Sabha too approves it, its life will be extended for the period mentioned in clause (4). In other words', the prior approval of the Parliament or ally of its two Houses is not necessary to give validity to the proclamation. What would happen if the proclamation is disapproved by either or both Houses of Parliament within two months does not arise for decision in these proceedings, and though, it would appear as a matter of constitutionality that the proclamation can nevertheless remain in operation for a period of two months, it is reasonable to suppose that faced with such disapproval, a mature political judgment would lean in favour of the revocation of the proclamation. Such constitutional crises cannot furnish a safe clue to the interpretation of the Constitution.