Back
1993 Supreme(MP) 247
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
S. K. JHA, K. M. AGARWAL, D. M. DHARMADHIKARI
SUNDERLAL PATWA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 237 Of 1993
Decided On : 04/02/1993
D.M.Dharmadhikari, Dipankar Gupta, K.M.AGRAWAL, N.C.JAIN, R.P.JAIN, R.SHRIVASTAVA, S.K.Jha
The President's power to issue a Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution is not absolute and is subject to judicial review. The Proclamation must be based on valid grounds and the President's satisfaction must be based on relevant material having a reasonable nexus for the imposition of President's rule. The approval of the Proclamation by the Parliament does not validate the Proclamation if it is otherwise invalid.
Headnote:
The Supreme Court of India ruled on the validity of a Presidential Proclamation issued under Article 356 of the Constitution of India, which imposed President's rule in the State of Madhya Pradesh and dissolved the State Assembly. The Court held that the Proclamation was invalid and beyond the scope of Article 356, and that the dissolution of the Assembly was also invalid. The Court found that the Proclamation was not based on valid grounds and that the President's satisfaction, reached on the advice of the Central Cabinet, was not based on relevant material having a reasonable nexus for the imposition of President's rule. The Court also held that the approval of the Proclamation by the Parliament did not validate the Proclamation, as it was valid for a period of two months irrespective of its approval or disapproval by the Parliament. The Court further held that the dissolution of the Assembly was not justified as the Proclamation was invalid.
Fact of the Case:
In December 1992, communal riots broke out in several parts of India, including the State of Madhya Pradesh, following the demolition of the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya. The Governor of Madhya Pradesh sent reports to the President recommending the imposition of President's rule in the State. The President issued a Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution, imposing President's rule in the State and dissolving the State Assembly. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the validity of the Proclamation.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that the Presidential Proclamation was invalid and beyond the scope of Article 356 of the Constitution. The Court found that the Proclamation was not based on valid grounds and that the President's satisfaction, reached on the advice of the Central Cabinet, was not based on relevant material having a reasonable nexus for the imposition of President's rule. The Court also held that the approval of the Proclamation by the Parliament did not validate the Proclamation, as it was valid for a period of two months irrespective of its approval or disapproval by the Parliament. The Court further held that the dissolution of the Assembly was not justified as the Proclamation was invalid.
Issues: 1. Whether the Presidential Proclamation issued under Article 356 of the Constitution was valid. 2. Whether the dissolution of the State Assembly was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Presidential Proclamation was invalid and beyond the scope of Article 356 of the Constitution. The Court found that the Proclamation was not based on valid grounds and that the President's satisfaction, reached on the advice of the Central Cabinet, was not based on relevant material having a reasonable nexus for the imposition of President's rule. 2. The Court held that the approval of the Proclamation by the Parliament did not validate the Proclamation, as it was valid for a period of two months irrespective of its approval or disapproval by the Parliament. 3. The Court further held that the dissolution of the Assembly was not justified as the Proclamation was invalid.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the petition and quashed the Presidential Proclamation. The Court also held that the dissolution of the Assembly was invalid.
( 1 ) WE have assembled today for the purpose of deciding only one incidental matter on which learned counsel for the parties insist. We give our ruling at the outset before we proceed further to hear the counsel for the parties on merits of the writ petition. That limited question as to the legality or propriety of the Governor either in his official capacity or by name described as the Governor, respondent No. 6 in the writ petition was warranted in law or was precluded by virtue of the legal immunity attached to the Governor on account of his acts done or purported to be done in his official capacity under the provisions of Art. 361 of the Constitution of India. While on the one hand, Shri N. C. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner insists that Shri Kunwar Mehmood Ali, Governor of the State of Madhya Pradesh was a necessary party and no immunity could be enjoyed by him qua a Governor under Art. 361 of the Constitution. It was not only proper but legal for him to be arrayed as one of the respondents in this petition. On the contrary, the learned Advocate General appearing for the State Government and Shri Ravindra Shrivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the Union of India asserted that whether by name or qua Governor, on the facts of the case, more so on the pleading of the petitioner, he is not only attracted the immunity clause under Art. 361 of the Constitution but was not even a proper party in these proceedings.
( 2 ) IN order to decide that limited question, we concentrate only on such aspects as are essential for the decision of the propriety and legality of the respondent No. 6 being arrayed in this case. In order to appreciate the point involved, we may at once call the salient features of the case. This is the petition under Art. 226, Constitution of India filed by the erstwhile Chief Minister of the State of M. P. Shri Sunderlal Patwa (while in other linked cases, some others are the petitioners ). Primarily, for the relief that an appropriate writ be issued by this Court quashing the Presidential proclamation under Art. 356 (1) of the Constitution as incorporated in Annexure-A superseding or dismissing the State Government and dissolving the Assembly of the State of M. P. Admittedly it is the Presidential proclamation (Annexure-A) which is sought to be quashed. No act of the Governor is sought to be quashed. Back-grounds in which the dispute with regard to the limited question at hand today arises are these :
( 3 ) IN paragraph 33 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the Government of M. P. had sent three reports on different dates, i. e. 8-12-1992, 10-12-1992 and 13-12-1992. These reports are said to be biased and are alleged to have been 'sent with mala fide intention' and therefore His Excellency the Governor was also made a party. Shri Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners states at the bar that the Govt. of M. P. , mentioned at the outset of paragraph 33 of the petition is merely a clerical error for the Governor of M. P. Be it so as we were to continue with the narration, these reports are alleged to be biased and sent with mala fide intention necessitating the Governor being made a party in the proceedings. Later on in paragraph 33, it has been stated that in his report dated 8-12-1992, the Governor recommends for proclamation of the President's rule and the dissolution of the State Legislative Assembly forthwith. In this report, there was absolutely no allegation against the State Legislature or the Legislative wing of the Govt. "this shows that the Governor had a biased mind because the Legislative Assembly consisted of more than 2/3rd BJP M. L. As. " This is followed by a narration of the unfortunate communal disturbances and the imposition of curfew and other matters with regard to the seriousness in the law and order problem in the State and we may herein now state that prima facie this paragraph is indicative of a sort of break down in law and order machinery of the
