1. Presidential reference under Article 143 on interpretation of Articles 174 and 324 regarding time limit for elections after premature dissolution of state assembly. (Para 1 , 86 , 87 )
Back
Next 
2002 Supreme(SC) 1067
Supreme Court Of India
Special Reference No. 1 Of 2002
Versus
Union of India
Decided on : OCTOBER 28, 2002
Article 174(1) mandates a maximum six-month gap between sessions for a functional assembly but is inapplicable to a dissolved assembly. Election scheduling is the exclusive domain of the Election Commission under Article 324, and delays in elections do not automatically trigger President's Rule under Article 356.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 174, 324, 356, 85, and 164 - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 14 and 15 - Interpretation of Article 174(1) regarding the interval between sessions - The provision that six months shall not intervene between the last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session applies only to an existing, live, and functional assembly and is inapplicable to a dissolved assembly (Paras 14, 41, 82b). Dissolution ends the life of the legislative body, breaking the chain of sittings and sessions; therefore, no "next session" can be envisioned for a dissolved house (Paras 40, 131).
(B) Constitution of India - Article 324 - Power of the constitutional authority responsible for elections - The superintendence, direction, and control of the conduct of elections are in the exclusive domain of the Commission, operating in a field distinct from Article 174 (Paras 83, 104). While no explicit period of limitation is prescribed in the Constitution or the Representation of the People Act for holding fresh elections after premature dissolution, elections should be held at the earliest occasion, generally within six months from the date of dissolution, to maintain the democratic form of government (Paras 78, 82e).
(C) Constitution of India - Article 356 - Failure of constitutional machinery - The inability to adhere to the six-month session interval under Article 174 does not automatically constitute a failure of constitutional machinery under Article 356. Article 356 is an emergency provision for exceptional circumstances and is unrelated to the fixation of election schedules (Paras 81, 152).
Facts of the case:
An assembly was dissolved prematurely. The constitutional authority responsible for elections noted that conducting free and fair elections immediately was not feasible due to prevailing circumstances. This would result in a gap of more than six months between the last sitting of the dissolved assembly and the first sitting of the newly constituted assembly. A reference was made to the court to determine if Article 174 is subject to the decision of the Commission under Article 324, whether a breach of Article 174 could be remedied by resorting to Article 356, and if the Commission is duty-bound to ensure the mandate of Article 174 is met.
Findings of Court:
Article 174(1) regulates the frequency of sessions for a functioning house to ensure executive accountability and does not provide a timeframe for holding fresh elections after dissolution. The power to frame election schedules is the exclusive domain of the Commission. The non-observance of a six-month gap between two different assemblies does not trigger the imposition of President's Rule.
Issues: (i) Whether Article 174 is subject to the decision of the Commission under Article 324 regarding election schedules; (ii) Whether the Commission can frame a schedule on the premise that any infraction of Article 174 would be remedied by Article 356; (iii) Whether the Commission is under a duty to carry out the mandate of Article 174 by utilizing all resources to ensure elections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that dissolution brings a legislative body to an end and terminates its representative capacity. Since Article 174 refers to "its last sitting" and "its first sitting in the next session," it implies a continuity of the same body. A newly elected assembly is a distinct entity, not a "next session" of a dissolved one. Thus, Article 174 and Article 324 operate in different fields and neither is subject to the other. Furthermore, Article 356 pertains to the failure of constitutional machinery and cannot be invoked simply due to a delay in the election schedule.
Result: Reference answered.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
- interpretation of constitution
- parliamentary democracy
- practice and procedure
- election law
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether Article 174 applies to dissolved assemblies, imposes a six-month limit, and whether Article 324 overrides Article 174. (Para 2 , 3 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 )
3. Article 174(1) applies only to existing assemblies and does not prescribe a period for elections; Articles 174 and 324 operate in distinct fields. (Para 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 121 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 137 , 138 , 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 154 , 155 , 156 )
4. Article 174(1) is mandatory for existing assemblies only; it does not provide a limitation for elections; Election Commission has exclusive power under Article 324. (Para 82 , 83 , 157 )
5. Court answered that Articles 174 and 324 operate independently; no automatic resort to Article 356; Election Commission must hold free and fair elections expeditiously. (Para 83 , 84 , 104 , 157 )
6. Does Article 174(1) apply to a dissolved legislative assembly?
No, it applies only to an existing functional assembly; dissolution ends the life of the assembly and the six-month rule does not apply. (Para 14 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 82 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 130 , 131 , 137 , 138 , 139 )
7. Does Article 174(1) prescribe a period of limitation for holding elections after premature dissolution?
No, it does not; however, as a constitutional scheme, elections should be held within six months from dissolution to ensure responsible government. (Para 46 , 47 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 82 , 103 , 143 , 144 , 145 , 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 )
8. What is the relationship between Article 174 and Article 324 of the Constitution?
They operate in different fields; Article 174 concerns sessions of existing assemblies, while Article 324 vests exclusive power in the Election Commission for conduct of elections. (Para 79 , 80 , 83 , 104 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126 )
9. Can the Election Commission frame a schedule on the premise that infraction of Article 174 would be remedied by resort to Article 356?
No, non-compliance with Article 174 does not automatically trigger Article 356; Article 356 is an emergency provision for breakdown of constitutional machinery, not for election delays. (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 104 , 152 , 153 , 154 )
10. Is the Election Commission under a duty to draw upon Union and state resources to ensure free and fair elections?
Yes, under Article 324, the Election Commission can and should draw upon all necessary resources to hold free and fair elections at the earliest. (Para 79 , 80 , 83 , 104 , 155 , 156 )
Judgment
V. N. KHARE, J.
( 1 ) THE dissolved legislative assembly of the state of Gujarat was constituted in march 1998 and its five-year term was to expire on 18. 3. 2003. On 19. 7. 2002 on the advice of the Chief Minister, the governor of Gujarat dissolved the legislative assembly. The last sitting of the dissolved legislative assembly was held on 3rd April 2002. Immediately after dissolution of the assembly, the Election Commission of India took steps for holding fresh elections for constituting the new legislative assembly. However, the Election commission by its order dated 16th august, 2002 while acknowledging that article 174 (1) is mandatory and applicable to an assembly which is dissolved and further that the elections for constituting new legislative assembly must be held within six months of the last session of the dissolved assembly, was of the view that it was not in a position to conduct elections before 3rd of October, 2002 which was the last date of expiry of six months from last sitting of the dissolved legislative assembly. It is in this context the President of India in exercise of powers conferred upon him by virtue of clause (1) of Article 143 of the Constitution of India referred three questions for the opinion of the Supreme Court by his order dated 19th August, 2002 which run as under:"whereas the legislative assembly of the state of Gujarat was dissolved on July 19, 2002 before the expiration of its normal duration on March 18, 2003; and WHEREAS Article 174 (1) of the Constitution provides that six months shall not intervene between the last sitting of the legislative assembly in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session: and WHEREAS the Election Commission has also noted that the mandate of Article 174 would require that the assembly should meet every six months even after the dissolution of the house, and that the election Commission has all along been consistent that normally a legislative assembly should meet at least every six months as contemplated by Article 174, even where it has been dissolved; and WHEREAS under section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for the purpose of holding general elections on the expiry of the duration of the legislative assembly or its dissolution, the governor shall, by notification, call upon all assemble constituencies in the state to elect members on such date or date as may be recommended by the election Commission of India; and WHEREAS the last sitting of the legislative assembly of the state of Gujarat was held on 3rd April, 2002, and as such the newly constituted legislative assembly should sit on or before 3rd October, 2002; and WHEREAS the Election Commission of India by its order no. 464/gj-LA/2002 dated August 16, 2002 has not recommended any date for holding general election for constituting a new legislative assembly for the state of Gujarat and observed that the commission will consider framing a suitable schedule for the general election to the state assembly in November-December 2002. Copy of the said order is annexed hereto; and WHEREAS owing to the aforesaid decision of the Election Commission of India, a new legislative assembly cannot come into existence so as to meet within the stipulated period of six months as provided under Article 174 (1) of the Constitution of India;. AND WHEREAS the Election Commission has held that the non-observance of the provisions of Article 174 (1) in the present situation would mean that the government of the state cannot be carried in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution within the meaning of Article 356 (1) of the Constitution and the President would then step in; and WHEREAS doubts have arisen with regard to the constitutional validity of the said order of the Election Commission of india as the order of the Election Commission which would result in a noncompliance with the mandatory requirement envisaged under Article 174 (1) of the Constitution under
