Back
1973 Supreme(AP) 40
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : O.CHINNAPPA REDDY
In the matter of: A.Sreeramulu - Appellant
Versus
. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-19-73
The President's satisfaction under Article 356 of the Constitution is not justifiable by a court.
Headnote:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - PRESIDENT'S SATISFACTION UNDER ARTICLE 356 OF THE CONSTITUTION - NOT JUSTIFIABLE - COURT CANNOT GO BEHIND THE PROCLAMATION - DELAY IN FILING WRIT PETITION - DISMISSAL.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a member of the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh, challenged the validity of the President's proclamation imposing President's rule in the State and the order directing the Governor to perform all the functions of the Government. The petitioner alleged that the proclamation was mala fide and obliquely motivated, and that the President's satisfaction was not justified.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the President's satisfaction under Article 356 of the Constitution is not justifiable by a court. The power exercised by the President under Article 356 is not a power of the Union Government but is specifically vested in the President by the Constitution. The satisfaction of the President is a personal satisfaction and cannot be equated to the discretion conferred upon an administrative agency by some legislation or subordinate legislation. The Court further held that the issues raised by the petitioner were of a peculiarly political nature and could not be resolved judicially. The very nature of the questions involved, the circumstances that it is the Head of the State that is entrusted with the discharge of the duty and the fact that it is the Parliament that is the final arbiter lead to the inevitable conclusion that the Court can never go behind the proclamation issued by the President.
Issues: 1. Whether the President's satisfaction under Article 356 of the Constitution is justifiable by a court? 2. Whether the issues raised by the petitioner were of a peculiarly political nature and could not be resolved judicially?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power exercised by the President under Article 356 is not a power of the Union Government but is specifically vested in the President by the Constitution. 2. The satisfaction of the President is a personal satisfaction and cannot be equated to the discretion conferred upon an administrative agency by some legislation or subordinate legislation. 3. The issues raised by the petitioner were of a peculiarly political nature and could not be resolved judicially. The very nature of the questions involved, the circumstances that it is the Head of the State that is entrusted with the discharge of the duty and the fact that it is the Parliament that is the final arbiter lead to the inevitable conclusion that the Court can never go behind the proclamation issued by the President.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is a member of the Legislative Assembly of Andhra Pradesh. In this application for the issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, he questions the validity of the proclamation of the President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution imposing what is familiarly called Presidents rule in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the Order of the President directing the Governor of the State of Andhra Pradesh to perform all the functions of the Government. The proclamation and the order were both made on 18-1-1973. The Writ Petition was filed on 9-3-1973.
( 2 ) IN his petition, the petitioner alleges that there was no circumstances whatever which could have led the President to be satisfied that a situation had arisen in which the Government of the State could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. According to the petitioner the Proclamation was mala fide and obliquely motivated. The truth, according to him, was that there was a crisis in the leadership of the State Congress Legislature Party : the leader Sri P. V. Narasimha Rao had lost the confidence of the majority of members because of the partisan attitude on the Mulki Rules issue: the proclamation had been issued not because there was a constitutional crisis in the State, but with a vied to set the house of the Congress Legislature Party in order and to resolve the crisis within the Party. The petitioner urges that if Sri, P. V. Narasimha Rao had lost the confidence of the Congress Legislature Party and had tendered the resignation, it was the duty of the Governor to explore the possibility of forming another Ministry. Instead, the petitioner says, the Governor submitted a report inviting Presidents rule. The petitioner further claims that the Presidents Proclamation had been issued to stifle any democratic expression of opinion by the Legislature of Andhra Pradesh on the burning question of bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh into two States.
( 3 ) WHEN the Writ Petition came up before me on 13-3-1973 for admission I felt a doubt whether the issues raised by the petitioner were justifiable issues and whether the validity of the Proclamation could be the subject-matter of an enquiry under Article 226 of the Constitution. I also felt that the nature of the issues raised were such that a Rule Nisi should not be issued by applying the ordinary rule of a triable issue or an arguable point but that a Rule Nisi should be issued only if the petitioner made out a substantial prima facie case. Therefore, I heard elaborate arguments from Mr. P. A. Choudary first on 12th and again on 13th to which date I adjourned the Writ Petition at the instance of Mr. Choudary who wanted more time. On 14th I also heard the learned Principal Government Pleader and the Standing Counsel for the Central Government who were kind enough to assist me though no Rule Nisi had been issued. Having heard elaborate arguments , I am convinced that the Writ Petition must be dismissed for a variety of reasons.
( 4 ) BEFORE considering the submissions of the petitioner it is just as well that I refer to the events that have taken place in this State in the last few months. In the wake of the judgment of the Supreme Court in what is now well known as the Multi Rules Case came the demand of the employees of the Government of Andhra Pradesh belonging to the Andhra area that the Mulki Rules should be scrapped on one side and the demand of the employees belonging to the Telangana area that the Mulki Rules should be strictly enforced on the other side. A controversy which involved none but the Government employees in the beginning spread step and came to involve large sections of the people in the whole of the Andra area of the State of Andhra Pradesh. Several demands sprung up. A demand that the Mulki Rules should be scrapped snowballed into other demands that Andhras living in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad shou
