Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India
AIR 2006 SC 980
Case Summary
[Powers of Governor]
[Dissolution]
[Article 356]
FACTS
The case of Rameshwar Prasad and Ors v. Union of India and Anr. revolves around the constitutional validity of the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly by the then President of India in 2005. The Bihar Assembly had been facing political instability, and following the resignation of Chief Minister Rabri Devi and the failure to form a new government, President’s Rule was imposed. However, due to a deadlock between political parties, the Bihar Governor recommended dissolving the Assembly, and the President exercised powers under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution to dissolve it.
Rameshwar Prasad, a member of the Bihar Assembly, along with other petitioners, challenged the dissolution, arguing that it violated the Constitution. They contended that the President's action was unconstitutional and violated the principle of representative democracy. The petitioners sought to revive the Bihar Legislative Assembly.
ISSUES
Whether the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly was unconstitutional and arbitrary under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution.
Whether the President's decision to dissolve the Assembly violated the principles of democracy and federalism enshrined in the Constitution.
Whether the recommendation for dissolution by the Bihar Governor was valid under the circumstances.
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 356 of the Constitution of India – Provides for the imposition of President’s Rule in a state when the government in the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. This allows the President to dissolve the state legislative assembly.
Article 174 of the Constitution of India – Deals with the dissolution of the legislative assembly of a state.
Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Ensures the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to representation through the legislature.
JUDGMENT
The Supreme Court, in a landmark decision, held that the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly by the President was unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that the dissolution of an elected assembly is a drastic step that undermines the democratic process. The Court stated that the action violated the principles of representative democracy, federalism, and the constitutional framework. The Court held that while Article 356 grants the President the power to impose President’s Rule and dissolve the assembly, such powers must not be exercised arbitrarily or in an unconstitutional manner. The recommendation of the Governor to dissolve the assembly was found to be a violation of the Constitution, as it was not backed by objective grounds.
The Court also emphasized that the President should exercise their powers under Article 356 with caution, ensuring that the democratic process is not unduly interfered with. The ruling underscored that dissolution should only occur when the democratic institutions have collapsed and not as a political maneuver. The Supreme Court's decision restored the Bihar Legislative Assembly and directed that the matter be reconsidered with due regard to constitutional principles.
Vikas Meena
Comments