Judgment

BEG, C.J.I. :- Original Suits Nos. 1 to 6 of 1977, before us now, have been filed on behalf of the States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar Himachal Pradesh and Orissa against the Union of India under Art. 131 of the Constitution of India. There are also before us three Writ Petitions Nos .67 to 69 of 1977, by three members of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Punjab against the Union of India and Shri Charan Singh, the Home Minister in the Government of India, and Shri Zail Singh, Chief Minister of Punjab. The six suits and the three Writ Petitions raise certain common questions of law and fact. They were, therefore, permitted to be argued together. We have already dismissed the suits and petitions after hearing them at length and now propose to state our reasons for doing so as stated in our order of 29th April 1977. Before dealing with the questions of fact and law I will indicate the nature of the reliefs sought by each plaintiff under Art. 131 and the grievance of each petitioner under Art. 32 of the Constitution.

2. The State of Rajasthan asked for a declaration that what is described as a "directive, contained in the letter dated 18th April, 1977, issued by Shir Charan Singh, the Union Home Minister, to the Chief Minister of the State, is unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution and also a declaration that the plaintiff State is "not constitutionally or legally obliged to comply with or to give effect to the directive contained in the said letter.

3. The State of Madhya Pradesh seeks the declaration that "the direction/order dated 18th April, 1977, of the defendant through its Home Minister is ultra vires the Constitution.

4. The State of Punjab asks for a declaration of what is describes as "direction/order as "ultra vires the Constitution.

5. The State of Bihar calls the letter a "directive and asks the declaration that it is "unconstitutional and void. It also prays for a declaration that a refusal by the Chief Minister of Bihar to comply with it "cannot be made the basis for the issue of proclamation under Art. 356 of the Constitution. It also seeks a declaration that Art. 356 of the Constitution "cannot be invoked for the sole purpose of dissolving the State Legislative Assembly and holding fresh elections for the said Assembly after the defeat of the majority party in the said Assembly in the elections for the Lok Sabha.

6. The State of Himachal Pradesh prays for eight declaration: firstly, that "the Council of Ministers of the State is not liable to resign and the Legislative Assembly of the plaintiff is not liable to be dissolved on the ground that the Congress Party, which holds a majority in the Legislative Assembly, had lost in the LOK SABHA elections and the Janta Party has come into power at the centre, secondly, that "the Executive of the Defendant is not entitled to encroach upon the sole prerogative of the Council of Ministers as to the nature of the advice which the latter thinks fit to render to the Governor, thirdly, that "the provisions of Art. 356 of the Constitution are not liable to be invoked by the President merely because the political party which has been returned to power in the Lok Sabha elections happens to be different from the party which holds majority in the Legislative Assembly of the plaintiff and which might have lost heavily in the said Lok Sabha elections; fourthly, that "the Legislative Assembly of the plaintiff is not liable to be dissolved before the expiry of the term under the Constitution because the views of the electorate have undergone a change as stated in the letter of the defendants Home Minister dated 18th April, 1977 fifthly, that "the circumstances mentioned in the letter do not constitute a threat to law and order, and, in any case, such a threat to law and order cannot form any constitutional basis for dissolution of the Legislative Assembly of the plaintiff; sixthly, that "reasons and circumstances stated in the letter addres