Article 77 of the Costitution of India with Case law
Article 77 of the Constitution of India – Explained with Case Law
🔹 Text of Article 77 – Conduct of Business of the Government of India
Clause (1):
All executive action of the Government of India shall be expressed to be taken in the name of the President.
Clause (2):
Orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the President shall be authenticated in such manner as may be specified in rules made by the President, and the validity of an order or instrument which is so authenticated shall not be called into question on the ground that it is not made or executed by the President.
Clause (3):
The President shall make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government of India, and for the allocation among Ministers of the said business.
🔍 Essence of Article 77
Legal Formality: All executive decisions must carry the name of the President, symbolizing his formal role as constitutional head.
Authentication Rule: Even though the President doesn't act personally, the decisions are valid if authenticated properly.
Administrative Delegation: President makes Transaction of Business Rules, allowing business to be handled efficiently by various ministries.
⚖️ Important Case Laws on Article 77
🔸 Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1974 AIR 2192, 1974 SCR (2) 831)
Facts: Concerned with whether the President and Governors can act independently of the Council of Ministers.
Held:
The President and Governors must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Article 77 does not give personal power to the President to act independently.
Relevance: Reinforced that the executive power lies with the ministers, and the President’s name is a formal constitutional expression.
🔸 Dattatraya Moreshwar Pangarkar v. State of Bombay (1952 AIR 181)
Relevance: Discussed the validity of executive actions taken in the name of the Governor.
Although related to Article 166 (State equivalent of Article 77), the principles apply similarly.
It was held that mere failure to follow form does not invalidate actions, unless there's gross procedural violation.
🔸 Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal (1967 AIR 1857)
Relevance: Clarified the scope of executive power and delegation.
Emphasized that executive actions can be validly delegated under rules framed under Article 77(3).
The President's role is not direct, but formal and procedural.
🔸 Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab (1962 AIR 395)
Facts: A minister wrote a note ordering reinstatement of a suspended officer, but the order was never formally issued.
Held:
Unless an order is formally communicated under the rules framed under Article 77 (or 166), it does not have legal effect.
Relevance: Executive decisions become valid only when properly authenticated and communicated as per Article 77.
✅ Summary Table
| Clause | Provision | Key Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 77(1) | All executive actions in the name of President | Symbolic head of executive |
| 77(2) | Authentication of orders | Legal validity of decisions |
| 77(3) | President to make business transaction rules | Allocation among ministries |
📝 Conclusion
Article 77 ensures formal structure and accountability in the executive branch of the Union government.
It emphasizes delegated functioning, even though actions are in the President’s name.
Courts have repeatedly clarified that real power lies with the Council of Ministers, and the President’s role is formal and must follow constitutional procedure.
RELATED Blog
0 comments