U.N.R. Rao v. Indira Gandhi
(AIR 1971 SC 1002)
|Dissolution of House, Prime Minister's Continuation|
CASE SUMMARY
UNR RAO Vs Indira gandhi Case summary
Facts:
In this case, the appellant, U.N.R. Rao, filed a writ petition challenging the continuation of Mrs. Indira Gandhi as Prime Minister after the dissolution of the House of the People (Lok Sabha). He contended that under the Indian Constitution, specifically Article 75(3), the Council of Ministers must be collectively responsible to the House of the People. Once the House was dissolved by the President under Article 85(2), the appellant argued that the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers should cease to hold office, as there was no longer a House to which they could be responsible.
The appellant also suggested that in the absence of the Council of Ministers, the President could exercise executive powers either directly or through subordinate officers, as provided by Article 53(1) of the Constitution.
Issues:
1. Does the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, cease to hold office after the dissolution of the House of the People under Article 85(2)?
2. Can the President exercise executive powers independently without a Council of Ministers during the period when the House of the People is dissolved?
Relevant Articles:
Article 53(1): Vests the executive power of the Union in the President, to be exercised either directly or through officers subordinate to him.
Article 74(1): Mandates that the President shall act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Article 75(1): The Prime Minister is appointed by the President, and other Ministers are appointed on the Prime Minister's advice.
Article 75(2): Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President.
Article 75(3): The Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of the People.
Article 85(2): Grants the President the power to dissolve the House of the People.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice S.M. Sikri, held that Article 75(3), which prescribes the collective responsibility of the Council of Ministers to the House of the People, does not mean that the Council must resign upon the dissolution of the House. The Court clarified that Article 74(1) is mandatory, meaning the President cannot function without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, even when the House has been dissolved. The term "shall" in Article 74(1) is to be read as imperative. The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the President could exercise executive powers without the Council of Ministers, stating that the dissolution of the House of the People does not affect the President’s obligation to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Constitution envisages the continuation of the Council of Ministers until a new House is constituted. In interpreting the Constitution, the Court referred to conventions and parliamentary practices prevalent in the United Kingdom at the time the Indian Constitution was framed, particularly the concept of responsible government. The Court's decision reaffirmed that the Prime Minister and her Council of Ministers could continue in office despite the dissolution of the House, emphasizing the necessity of the Council of Ministers' role in the functioning of the executive in accordance with the Constitution.
Comments