Podcast

State of Rajasthan v. UOI

State of Rajasthan v. UOI

Citation: AIR 1977 SC 1361

Court: Supreme Court of India

Facts of the case: In 1977 elections, after the lifting of the emergency of 1975,  the Congress party lost elections in 6 states including Rajasthan .The union Home Minister of Janata Party, Mr. Charan Singh, wrote letter to each of the chief ministers of these states suggesting that they should seek dissolution of State legislature from the governor and obtain fresh mandate from the electorate. The State of Rajasthan along with other states filed an original suit in the Supreme Court against the Union of India under Article 131 holding that the directive is illegal and inherently unconstitutional.

Issue: whether imposition of President rule in states is reviewable by the judiciary

Judgment: The Supreme Court dismissed the suit and held that the apprehended proclamation would be valid.  The position adopted by the Court was that it could not interfere with the Centre’s exercise of power under Article 356 merely on the ground that it embraced political and executive policy and expediency unless some constitutional provision was being infringed . It was noted that  Article 356(5) makes it impossible for the court to question the Presidents satisfaction on any ground unless and until the usage of the Article is found to be “grossly perverse and unreasonable” to constitute patent abuse of the provision.

It was held by the court that the proclamation is intended to function as a safeguard against the failure of constitutional machinery in a state or to repair the effects of a breakdown. Moreover, it was further observed that the satisfaction of the President under Article 356 is a subjective one and cannot be tested by reference to any objective tests. The correctness or adequacy of the facts and circumstances is not open to the court for review. It was stated the power under Article 356 allowed the government to make a curative or preventive action and therefore in the case in question, the possibility of State Government having lost the confidence of people could not be ruled out.

The highlight of the decision lies in the assertion by almost all the judges that in spite of the broad ambit of power under Article 356, a presidential proclamation could be challenged if power was exercised malafide or on constitutionally or legally prohibited grounds. It was observed that “satisfaction” of the President is a condition precedent to the exercise of power under the article 356.  It was held that maintenance of democratic norms could not be regarded as an irrelevant ground for the exercise of power of proclamation. Hence the letter of the Home Minister was characterised as advisory in nature and not malafide.

Also, regarding the question as to whether the term “state “ in Article 131 (a) also included State government., it was held that a dispute between the Central and State government involving a legal right  was well within the powers of Article 131.