Facts in Brief

When the general elections for the Lok Sabha took place in 1977, the Congress Party was badly routed in several States by the Janata Party, which won and formed the Government at the Centre. In these States, Congress Governments were functioning at the time, and they still had more time to run before the completion of their full term.

The Central Home Minister, Charan Singh, wrote a letter to each of the Chief Ministers of the States, suggesting that they should seek dissolution of the State Legislature from the Governor and obtain a fresh mandate from the electorate. The State of Rajasthan, along with several other affected States, filed an original suit under Article 131 of the Constitution against the Union of India, praying the Court to declare this directive of the Central Home Minister as unconstitutional and illegal.

Arguments

It was argued that the letter of the Central Home Minister was a prelude to the invocation of Article 356 in these States, and that the dissolution of the State Legislatures on the ground mentioned in the said letter was prima facie outside the purview of Article 356. In substance, the suit was designed to forestall the invocation of Article 356 in the concerned States.

Judgment

The Court observed:

“The satisfaction under Article 356 is a subjective one and cannot be tested by reference to any objective tests or by judicially discoverable or manageable standards.”

Upon the facts, the Court concluded that it could not go into the correctness or adequacy of the facts and circumstances on which the satisfaction of the Central Government is based. However, one thing was certain: if the satisfaction was mala fide, or was based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds, the Court would have the jurisdiction to examine it — because in that case, there would be no satisfaction of the President in regard to the matter in which he is required to be satisfied (under Article 356, for the dissolution of the State Legislature).

The Supreme Court held, therefore, that the State Legislature could be dissolved without the President’s proclamation having been approved by Parliament. Any such proclamation came into immediate effect, and remained in force for two months without Parliamentary approval. The Court also rejected the contention that the proclamation could not be issued when either or both Houses of Parliament were in session.

It was further held that even if Parliament disapproved the proclamation within the said period of two months, the proclamation continued to be valid for two months; and that even if both Houses did not approve or disapprove the proclamation, the Governments which had been dismissed, or the Assembly which may have been dissolved, did not revive.

For the Common Man

The broad position laid down by the Supreme Court was that it could not interfere with the Centre’s exercise of power under Article 356 of the Constitution of India merely on the ground that it embraced political and executive policy and expediency — unless some constitutional provision was infringed, showing that the Presidential satisfaction (under Article 356) was mala fide, or was based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds.