Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)Article 164 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Madan Murari Verma vs Choudhuri Charan Singh And Anr. on 11 December, 1979
The question now arises, whether having regard to the averments in the affidavit, the Governor could be called upon to answer to this Court as to how he came to call on the second respondent to form the Ministry and how he arrived at that satisfaction. From the above provisions, it is clear that there are three kinds of power exercised by the Governor -- (i) the executive power in accordance with the provisions of Constitution, (ii) powers exercised by him on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, and (iii) sole discretion. In so far as the power that has
come to be exercised by the Governor is wholly in his discretion, I do not think, this court can interfere at all in matters relating to discretion. The Calcutta case makes the position very clear, because it laid down in Madan Murari v. Choudhuri Charan Singh, , wherein Sabyasachi Mukharji, J, as he then was, stated in answering this question, whether the President was justified in calling upon the respondent No. 1, to form the Ministry and to advise the President about the formation of the Council of Ministers as he did in the facts and circumstances of the case. That related to the late Prime Minister Shri Choudhuri Charan Singh being called upon to form the Ministry by the then President. In dealing with that, the learned Judge observed in paragraph No. 9, and particularly it was stated-
K.A. Mathialagan And Ors. vs The Governor Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 11 December, 1972
19. No doubt, the petitioner would contend that under Article 226, this Court had jurisdiction to interpret every other article of the Constitution, but as interpreted in the light of the case law, I find that the immunity of the Governor with regard to the action pertaining to his sole discretion is absolute and beyond even the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The case reported in K.A. Mathiazhagan v. The Governor, , is one relating to the prorogation of the Assembly and that it must be noted it was on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. It has been observed therein-
Mahabir Prasad Sharma vs Prafulla Chandra Ghose And Ors. on 6 February, 1968
16. The next case that can be usefully referred to is Mahabir Prasad v. Prafulla Chandra, . Justice Mitra observed in that case dealing with Article 164(1)-
S. Ramaswamy vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 August, 1976
"The posit ion as explained in the text books as referred to above, will show that if no person enjoying the majority support of the House is available, the Sovereign and in our country the President can call upon the person who happens to be the leader of the largest party in the House to form a Cabinet."