1977 Supreme(SC) 226
M. H. BEG, N. L. UNTWALIA, P. K. GOSWAMI, P. N. BHAGWATI, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, A. C. GUPTA
State Of Rajasthan: State Of M. P. : State Of Punjab: State Of Bihar: State Of H. P. : State Of Orissa: Sajida Begum – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
Advocates:
A.K.SRIVASTAVA, B.B.Singh, B.DUTTA, C.L.SAHU, CHOUDHARY DEVI LAL, D.P.Singh, G.RATHI, GIRDHARI LAL BHARGAVA, H.R.GOKHALE, I.M.SHROFF, J.P.GOYAL, MADAN BHATIA, NIREN DEY, O.P.Sharma, R.K.GARG, R.K.MEHTA, RAM PANJWANI, S.Baggar, S.C.AGRAWAL, S.K.Bagga, S.K.Sinha, S.K.TIWARI, S.M.Jain, Sharad Manohar, SOLI J.SORABJI, Udaipratap Singh, V.J.Francis, VIJAY PANJAVANI
Judgement Key Points
- Key Points:
- The six State suits and Punjab writ petitions concern maintainability under Art. 131 and Art. 32, and the Court’s jurisdiction over dissolution under Art. 356 (!) (!) (!)
- The Court held that Art. 131 suits require a dispute involving a legal right between the Government of India and States; mere political disputes are not maintainable (!) (!)
- The President’s satisfaction under Art. 356(1) is a subjective prerequisite to proclaim a dissolution; the court’s review is limited and cannot second-guess the President’s satisfaction except for mala fides or extraneous grounds (subject to Art. 356(5)) (!) (!) (!)
- The 2-month life of a proclamation and parliamentary control (Art. 356(3)-(4)) create a balance with parliamentary oversight; consulting Parliament is not a prerequisite to validity but affects prolongation (!) (!) (!)
- The Union’s directives or advice to State Chief Ministers (to dissolve assemblies) were treated as non-binding advice, not a legal directive binding under Arts. 256-257, and no injunction can compel the Union to refrain under Art. 356 (!) (!)
- The judgment emphasizes the constitutional distinction between State and State Government, and that dissolution does not abolish the State itself; rights of the State vs. government are analyzed for Art. 131 purposes (!) (!) (!)
- The Court ultimately dismissed the suits and writ petitions as not maintainable under Art. 131 and not justiciable for the stated challenges to the Home Minister’s letter and proposed dissolution (!) (!) (!)
What is the scope and maintainability of Article 131 suits and Article 32 writ petitions in the context of dissolution of State Assemblies?
What is the extent of the President's satisfaction under Article 356(1) and the court's power to review that satisfaction?
What is the relationship between the State, State Government, and the Union regarding directives, advice, and dissolution under Articles 256, 257, 365, and 356?
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, is
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
