JUDGMENT

Authored By : B.M. Lal, Brijesh Kumar, Markandey Katju, Markandey Katju, B.M. Lal, Brijesh Kumar

B.M. Lal, Brijesh Kumar and Markandey Katju, JJ.

1. For the reasons recorded separately this court unanimously holds that the impugned Presidential Proclamation dated 17.10.1996 reimposing Presidential Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution of India in the State of Uttar Pradesh subsequently approved by the Parliament is unconstitutional, issued in colourable exercise of powers and is based on wholly irrelevant and extraneous grounds and therefore, cannot be allowed to stand, consequently the same is hereby quashed. However, to avoid any constitutional dead-lock or crisis resultant to the quashing of aforesaid Proclamation, we direct, by applying the doctrine of prospective overruling, that this judgment shall come into operation with effect from 26.12.1996.

Markandey Katju, J.

2. This writ petition and the connected writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned proclamation of the President of India dated 17.10.1996 in purported exercise of power under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the U.P. Governor to invite the leader of the largest single party in the U.P. Assembly to form a Government.

3. These petitions were earlier heard by a Division Bench of this Court, and in view of the difference of opinion between the two Hon'ble Judges the matter has been referred by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to this Full Bench.

4. The facts of the case are that on the fall of the Mayawati Government in U.P. due to withdrawal of support by the Bhartiya Janta Party President's Rule was imposed in the State on 18.10.1995 under Article 356(1) of the Constitution, and after expiration of six months the period of President's Rule was extended for another six months which was to expire on 17.10.1996.

5. The Presidential Proclamation dated 18.10.1995 was laid before both Houses of Parliament under Article 356(3) and was approved by both the Houses before the expiry of two months as required by Article 356(3). The Proclamation was again laid before the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, and was approved by the Rajya Sabha on 1.3.1996 and the Lok Sabha on 12.3.1996.

6. In the meanwhile, the U.P. Assembly which had earlier been suspended was dissolved by notification dated 28.10.1995 and elections were held for the U.P. Vidhan Sabha on 30th September, 3rd October and 7th October, 1996 and the results were declared by 10th October, 1996. These results were notified by the Election Commission under Section 73 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 on 17.10.1996.

7. The result of the election, as stated in paragraph 20 to the main counter affidavit of the State Government (filed by the Principal Secretary to the Governor) was as follows:--

8. The above figures indicate that no political party or alliance had a majority in the House of 425 members. The largest single alliance, the B.J.P.--Samta Party alliance, was short of majority by 37 members.

9. Thereupon, a piquant situation arose in the State. As stated in paragraph 22 of the State's main counter affidavit, the leaders of the S.P., the B.S.P., and the Congress announced that they will not seek any support from the B.J.P. nor will they support it. At the same time, as stated in paragraph 23 of the said counter affidavit, the leader of the Samajvadi Party, Sri Mulayam Singh Yadav, also finally declared that he will have no truck with the B.S.P.

10. In these circumstances as alleged in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit, the Governor formed the opinion that it was not possible to find any p