PSDA- Case Analysis (Constitutional Law-I)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Vs.
UNION OF INDIA
(1977)

SUBMITTED TO:
Mr. Avinash Kumar
PROFESSOR, VSLLS

SUBMITTED BY:
Vaidant Tongaria
Enrollment no.-25217703823
OF
B.A.LLB HONS., SEMESTER – II
SECTION – E
 CONTENT

S. no Topic

1. Introduction

2. Facts of the case

3. Background of Article 356

4. Observation and decision by Hon’ble Supreme Court

5. Analysis and Conclusion

 INTRODUCTION

This Research paper explores the significant case of State of

Rajasthan v. Union of India 1977, analyzing the relationship
between political parties and constitutional ideals in the
implementation of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution. The
authors examine the background of Article 356 and its rules
for proclaiming a state emergency, discussing the
constitutional constraints and the President's involvement in
this situation. The article states that while political factors can
impact the application of Article 356, cases of serious
constitutional misuse can be reviewed by the judiciary. The
writers stress the significance of maintaining federalism and
supporting democratic principles within the bounds of the
constitution.
 Facts of the Case

 In the elections held in March 1977 the Janata party

secured overwhelming majority in Lok Sabha.

 In the States the Congress(R) was continuing in power.

 Considering the complete and unequivocal rejection of

the Congress Party, on April 18, 1977, the Union Home
Minister addressed a letter to the nine States of Bihar,
U.P., Himachal Pradesh, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh,
Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and West Bengal, asking them
to advise their respective Governors to dissolve the
Assemblies and seek a fresh mandate from the people.

 On April 22, in a radio interview, the Union Law

Minister said that "a clear case has been made out for the
dissolution of the Assemblies in the nine Congress-ruled
States and holding of fresh elections".

 On April 25/26 the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh,

Punjab, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa filed suits in
the Supreme Court praying for a declaration that the
letter of the Home Minister was illegal and ultra vires the
Constitution and not binding on.
Background of Article 356
The germination of Article 356 of the Constitution can be found in the
abhorred Section 93 of the Government of India Act, 1935, which
established British dominance over Indian nationalist aspirations. The
power here was accorded to the Governor to proclaim an emergency
on his satisfaction that the state is not being governed in accordance
with the provisions of the Constitution. Section 93 essentially reflects
the federalism envisioned in the Indian context where states though
not entirely amputated from or absorbed within the Union, enjoy a
limited sense of autonomy from the Union.

With the scope of “Union of States”, the constitution negates the

possibility of cessationist tendencies of the State. However, this
cohesion cannot be attributed to an imaginary identical nature of the
Union and the State. The federal units, in regards to the electoral
system, can have a different ruling party than the Union, with
radically different political manifestos. Yet the sincerity of Article
356 of the Constitution to keep this federal system intact has not
remained aloof from doubts.

On a report of the Governor of any of the States or otherwise, the

President can issue a proclamation of emergency under Article
356(1). Where there is no report, the President can act on other
methods which include but are not limited to the advice given to him
by the Council of Ministers.

According to the Privy Council in Bhagat Singh v. The King

Emperor1, the drastic action necessitated by the chaotic state of
matters in a particular State can be promulgated by the Governor-
General alone. The President in our Constitution being a
constitutional head is bound to act on the advice of the Council of
Ministers. This position was made explicit by the 42nd amendment
which had the effect of equating the decision of the President as the
decision of the Council of Ministers under Article 74.

1
(1931)33BOMLR950
Observation and Decision by Hon’ble Supreme
Court

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.

It is observed that the decision to dissolve an election or retain the

same class of council or government for a specific period can be a
matter of political strategy and wisdom in a popular system. It is not
inherently illegal for a party to attempt to gain more political power in
order to pursue its own agenda, as long as it is not in violation of any
existing provisions. Article 356(1) requires an assessment of the
situation, which may involve political and administrative policies.
Courts cannot interfere with these matters unless it is proven that the
President has violated or disregarded any established provisions under
Article 356(1). The satisfaction of the President is subjective and
cannot be evaluated using objective tests. It is not suitable for judicial
determination and is therefore left to the discretion of the Central
Government.

Under these circumstances, the Court cannot question the accuracy or

acceptability of the data and circumstances on which the satisfaction
of the Central Government is based. Doing so would encroach upon
the political realm, which the Court must avoid in order to maintain
its legitimacy with the people. However, if the satisfaction is found to
be in bad faith or based on irrelevant grounds, the Court has the
authority to examine it, as it would indicate a lack of satisfaction on
the part of the President regarding the matter at hand. The satisfaction
of the President is a prerequisite for exercising power under Article
356(1), and if it can be proven that there is no such satisfaction, the
exercise of power would be invalid. It is important to note that the
satisfaction of the President is considered final under Clause (5) of
Article 356.

It is inferred that the decision to dissolve an election or retain the

same class of council or government is a complex and nuanced
process that involves political strategy, legal considerations, and the
subjective satisfaction of the President. While the Court generally
cannot interfere with these matters, it does have the authority to
examine the satisfaction of the President if it is found to be in bad
faith or based on irrelevant grounds. Ultimately, the legitimacy of the
decision rests on the satisfaction of the President, and if this
satisfaction is proven to be lacking, the exercise of power under
Article 356(1) would be deemed invalid. It is crucial for the political
system to uphold the rule of law and ensure that decisions are made in
good faith and in accordance with established provisions.
Analysis and Conclusion
State of Rajasthan v. Union of India is a landmark case in Indian
constitutional law for the purposes of interpretation and application of
Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, which relates to the imposition
of President’s Rule in a state. In summary, the judgment of the
Supreme Court in this case and its interpretation in posterior
judgements and legislation has been instrumental in the framing of the
statute law related to the exercise of executive power and federal
principles in India.

In Conclusion, the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Union of India,

the Supreme Court held that the imposition of President’s Rule under
Article 356 involves a political discretion, which is to be exercised by
the president under the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The
Court affirmed that the satisfaction of the President with respect to the
breakdown of constitutional machinery in a state is a subjective one
and is not amenable to judicial review – unless when it is based on
mala fides or formed on extraneous and irrelevant grounds. Moreover,
the Court also laid down the principle of political stability: “To leave
a pseudo-majority in power is hazardous in the extreme. It is for
immediate unity of the nation”. Thus, the Supreme Court noted that
the people must have confidence in the government, which should
implement effective governance. The Court emphasized “The
government cannot cease to be responsive to the people who voted it
to power”.