The main legal point established in the judgment is that the invocation of Article 355 of the Constitution of India requires a situation of internal disturbance that endangers the security of the State, and the court does not have the jurisdiction to issue directions to the Centre to invoke Article 355.

Headnote:
Mandamus - Invocation of Article 355 of the Constitution of India - Article 355 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Article 355 of the Constitution of India - The judgment discusses the legal provisions and interpretations of Article 355 of the Constitution of India, which imposes a duty on the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The judgment also highlights the purpose and underlying principles of Article 355, as well as the scope of the Union's obligations and powers in dealing with internal disturbance.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and take necessary steps to forward it to the 1st respondent for controlling the internal disturbance contemplated under Article 355 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner alleged that the State of Tamil Nadu had failed in its constitutional duty, leading to the breakdown of the constitutional machinery.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the facts presented did not fall under the ambit of 'internal disturbance' as contemplated in Article 355 of the Constitution of India. It held that the situation did not constitute a threat that would warrant the invocation of Article 355. The court also concluded that it did not have the power to issue directions to the Centre to invoke Article 355, as it is a part of the policy decision on the part of the Executive.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were the invocation of Article 355 of the Constitution of India, the duty of the Union to protect States against internal disturbance, and the court's jurisdiction to issue directions to the Centre to invoke Article 355.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 355 and the scope of the Union's obligations and powers in dealing with internal disturbance. It emphasized that the situation presented by the petitioner did not meet the criteria for invoking Article 355 and that the court did not have the jurisdiction to issue such directions to the Centre.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it was misconceived and did not merit consideration. It held that the facts of the case did not warrant invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER :

(Order of the court was made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice)

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation dated 15.06.2023 and to take necessary steps to forward it to the 1st respondent for controlling the internal disturbance contemplated the Article 355 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

The petitioner, claiming to be a journalist, urges the court to intervene and invoke Article 355 read with Article 352 of the Constitution of India, as, according to the petitioner, the State of Tamil Nadu has failed in its constitutional duty and the government of the State is not being carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, leading to the breakdown of the constitutional machinery.

2. Mr.P.Vijendran, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contends that:

(a) Once a candidate is elected and either becomes a Member of the Legislature or the Minister of the Cabinet, he ought to have strictly followed the oath of affirmation taken upon election. One V.Senthil Balaji, the ex-Minister of Electricity, Non- Conventional Energy, Development and Molasses, has acted treacherously and in violation of the Constitution of India and the Representation of People Act, 1950.

(b) The Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu, and the Minister of State, V.Senthil Balaji, have acted in violation of the Centre – State obligations with respect to the recent prosecution exercised by the Enforcement Directorate in the State of Tamil Nadu.

(c) The Directorate of Enforcement arrested V.Senthil Balaji in connection with Money Laundering cases connected with cash for job scam. During this arrest, the Income tax officials were mobbed and manhandled. Further, the members of the DMK party have caused great disturbance to the general public.

(d) The Director General of Police and the Commissioner of Police have failed to ensure peaceful conditions in the present operations of the Enforcement Directorate and Income Tax Department in the State of Tamil Nadu. The State Law Enforcement Agency has been unable to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens and maintain law and order in the State of Tamil Nadu.

(e) When the State machinery has failed to maintain internal peace and order, it is the constitutional duty of the Union to ensure that the Government of Tamil Nadu is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India.

(f) If the Government of the State is not being carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, it is the responsibility on the State Human Rights Commission to set it right by passing appropriate recommendations to the Central Government. The foundational factual matrix is the report of the Governor or other information in possession of the Union received otherwise to reach the satisfaction that a situation has arisen for the intervention by the Union of India.

(g) Article 355 of the Constitution can be invoked and resorted to in case of internal disturbance also and the present case is of such a nature. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (1977) 3 SCC 592.

(h) Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha and another v. The State of Gujarat, reported in CDJ 2020 SC 749, to contend that Articles 355 and 352 of the Constitution can be invoked in case of internal disturbance.

3. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Before we proceed to advert to the contentions of learned counsel, it would be appropriate to refer to Article 355 of the Constitution of India:

“355. Duty of the Union to protect States against external aggression and internal disturbance.- It shall be the duty of the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal d