Rameshwar Prasad and Others vs Union of India
Case: Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: (2006) 2 SCC 1
Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 17 January 2006
Background and Context
This case deals with the issue of imposition of President's Rule in Bihar in 2005 under Article 356 of the Constitution, and the validity of such imposition.
The case focuses on:
The scope of judicial review over the imposition of President's Rule.
The application of Article 356 and the procedure under the Constitution.
Protection of federal structure and democratic governance.
Facts of the Case
In March 2005, the Governor of Bihar recommended the imposition of President's Rule under Article 356(1) citing a breakdown of constitutional machinery.
The Union Cabinet approved the recommendation, and President's Rule was imposed.
The imposition was challenged by elected members of the Bihar Legislative Assembly, including Rameshwar Prasad.
They argued that the imposition was malafide, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, violating the principles of federalism and democracy.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the imposition of President's Rule in Bihar was valid and in accordance with Article 356.
Whether the courts have the power to review the decision to impose President's Rule.
What are the parameters for judicial review of Article 356 proclamations?
Whether the Governor's report and Union Cabinet's decision were justiciable.
Legal Provisions Involved
Article 356 of the Constitution — Provisions relating to failure of constitutional machinery in states.
Article 365 — Obligation of states to comply with directions of the Union.
Judicial review principles under Articles 13, 14, 32.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Judgment
1. Judicial Review of Article 356
The Court reaffirmed that the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review.
Courts can examine whether there was constitutional breakdown or if the imposition was malafide or arbitrary.
The scope of review includes assessing the material basis and reasons for the proclamation.
2. Governor’s Report and Cabinet’s Decision
The Governor’s report recommending President’s Rule is not sacrosanct and can be scrutinized.
The Union Cabinet’s approval of the proclamation is also subject to judicial review.
The Court emphasized that the material should show genuine failure of constitutional machinery.
3. Limits of Judicial Intervention
The Court would not substitute its own view on political matters but would check gross abuse or malafide use of Article 356.
Judicial review ensures federal balance and constitutional governance.
4. Specific Findings
In the Bihar case, the Court found no valid ground for President’s Rule.
The imposition was arbitrary and malafide, violating democratic norms.
The Court set aside the proclamation and restored the elected government.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court emphasized that Article 356 should be used sparingly and only in genuine cases of constitutional breakdown.
Judicial review acts as a check against misuse of this power by the Union.
The decision reinforced the federal structure of India and democracy by protecting elected governments from arbitrary dismissal.
Significance of the Case
Strengthened the judicial control over Article 356 proclamations.
Reinforced the principle that democratic governments cannot be dismissed lightly.
Enhanced federalism and constitutionalism by limiting misuse of emergency powers.
Provided clear guidelines for courts to scrutinize President’s Rule proclamations.
Related Case Laws
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 — seminal judgment on Article 356 and judicial review.
H.N. Bahuguna v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1983) 1 SCC 40 — on misuse of Article 356.
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1 built upon the principles laid down in Bommai.
RELATED Blog
0 comments