DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW

UNIVERSITY
VISAKHAPATNAM, A.P., INDIA
PROJECT TITLE:
CENTRAL CONTROL OVER STATE
LEGISLATION
SUBJECT:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
NAME OF THE FACULTY:
Mr. BHARAT KUMAR

NAME OF THE STUDENT-

DHRUV RAJPUROHIT

2014036 4TH SEMESTER

Acknowledgment
At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt
gratitude and gratefulness to my teacher Mr. BHARAT
KUMAR for putting his trust in me and giving me a
project topic such as this and for having the faith in me
to present my report in the best possible way. I would
also like to thank him for the guidance he provided
during the tenure of my working in this project.

Sir, thank you for providing me with an opportunity that

helped me to grow. My gratitude also goes out to the
staff and administration of DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA
NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY for providing the
infrastructural facilities in the form of our library and IT
Lab that was a source of great help for the completion
of this project.

Thanking you all sincerely,

Name-Dhruv Rajpurohit

Roll id-2014036

INDEX--

1.INTRODUCTION
2.CONSTITUTION OF STATE LEGISLATURE
3.CENTRE'S CONTROL OVER STATE LEGILATION
4.ART-245-255--Distribution of powers
5.ART 256-263--Administrative relations
6.ART 256-261--General
7. Article 262 -- on Disputes relating to waters
8. Article 263 -- on Co-ordination between States

Introduction:-

A State Government is of the parliamentary type and follows closely the model of Central
Government. The basic structure and pattern of a State Government resembles the Central
Government. The State Government may be resolved into three components:

The Legislative(State Legislature)

The executive(Governor & Council of Ministers)
The judicial( High court & subordinate courts)

This Project would be focused on the State Legislature.

CONSTITUTION OF A STATE LEGISLATURE

The State Legislature is bicameral having two Houses in Andhra Pradesh, Bihar,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh. It is composed of the Governor,
Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly. Whereas, it is unicameral having only one
House in other states. It is composed of The Governor and Legislative Assembly. 1

CENTRAL CONTROL OVER STATE LEGISLATION

There are a few provisions in the Constitution which prescribe assent of the President ,i.e.,
the Central Executive before a bill passed by a State Legislature can become legally effective.
This mechanism is part of the scheme of checks and balances insofar as the Centre is able to
keep under its control certain types of State Legislation. 2
(a) Article 31A(1) provides that a law regarding acquisition of estates will not be incalid even
if it is inconsistent with Article14 or 19. However, Article 14 and 19 cannot be granted unless
the relevant State Law has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has
received his assent. In this way, the Centre can ensure that the states make only justifiable use
of their power to deviate from the Fundamental Rights. The proviso enables the Central
Executive to keep check on the State Laws which come under Article 31A(1) so that there is
some uniformity among the state laws. This way, the Centre can also ensure that the State
does not use its legislative powers for a purpose collateral to the purposes mentioned in
Article 31A(1).
(b) Article 31C gives an overriding effect to the Directive Principles over the Fudamental
Rights granted by Article 14 and 19, but a State Law can claim this effect only if the
President gives his assent to it. It may be acknowledged that Article 31C confers very drastic
power on State Legislatures and so some safeguard could be required against the usage of
laws inappropriately.
(c) Under the second Proviso to Article 200, a State Governor has been ordained not to assent
to, but to reserve for the consideration of the President, any bill passed by a State Legislature,
which in his opinion, would, if it became law, so derogate from the powers of the High Court
as to endanger the position which that court is by the Constitution designed to fill. This
Proviso is a safeguard against a State passing any law which may adversely affect the powers,
2

jurisdiction or status of the High Court. The Centre may intervene in a fit case and preserve
the High Court's constitutional status. 3
(d) Under Article 288(2), a state law imposing a tax in respect of any water or electricity
stored, generated, consumed, distributed or sold by any authority established by law made by
Parliament for regulating or developing any inter-state river or river-valley, has no effect
unless it has received the assent of the President. 4

Articles 245255 on Distribution of Legislative Powers

The Constitution provides for a three-fold distribution of legislative subjects between the
Centre and the states,
List-I (the Union List),
List-II (the State List)
List-III (the Concurrent List) in the Seventh Schedule:
(i)

(ii)

(iii)

3
4
5

The Parliament has exclusive powers to make laws with respect to any of the matters
enumerated in the Union List. This list has at present 100 subjects (originally 971
subjects) like defence, banking, foreign affairs, currency, atomic energy, insurance,
communication, inter-state trade and commerce, census, audit and so on.
The state legislature has in normal circumstances exclusive powers to make laws
with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List. This has at present 61
subjects (originally 662 subjects) like public order, police, public health and
sanitation, agriculture, prisons, local government, fisheries, markets, theaters,
gambling and so on. 5
Both, the Parliament and state legislature can make laws with respect to any of the
matters enumerated in the Concurrent List. This list has at present 52 subjects
(originally 473 subjects) like criminal law and procedure, civil procedure, marriage
and divorce, population control and family planning, electricity, labour wel-fare,
economic and social planning, drugs, newspapers, books and printing press, and
others. The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 transferred five subjects to Concurrent List
from State List, that is, (a) education, (b) forests, (c) weights and measures, (d)

protection of wild animals and birds, and (e) administration of justice; constitu-tion
and organisation of all courts except the Supreme Court and the high courts. The
power to make laws with respect to residuary subjects (i.e., the matters which are not
enumerated in any of the three lists) is vested in the Parliament. This residuary power
of legisla-tion includes the power to levy residuary taxes. From the above scheme, it
is clear that the matters of national importance and the matters which requires
uniformity of legislation nationwide are included in the Union List. The matters of
regional and local importance and the matters which permits diversity of interest are
specified in the State List. The matters on which uniformity of legislation throughout
the country is desirable but not essential are enumerated in the concurrent list. Thus,
it permits diversity along with uniformity. In US, only the powers of the Federal
Government are enumerated in the Constitution and the residuary powers are left to
the states. The Australian Constitution followed the American pattern of single
enumeration of powers. In Canada, on the other hand, there is a double enumeration
Federal and Provincial, and the residuary powers are vested in the Centre. The
Government of India (GoI) Act of 1935 provided for a three-fold emumenration, viz.,
federal, provincial and concurrent. The present Constitution follows the scheme of
this act but with one difference, that is, under this act, the residuary powers were
given neither to the federal legislature nor to the provincial legislature but to the
governor-general of India. In this respect, India follows the Canadian precedent. The
Constitution expressly secure the predominance of the Union List over the State List
and the Concurrent List and that of the Concurrent List over the State List. Thus, in
case of overlapping between the Union List and the State List, the former should
prevail. In case of overlapping between the Union List and the Concurrent List, it is
again the former which should prevail. Where there is a conflict between the
Concurrent List and the State List, it is the former that should prevail. In case of a
conflict between the Central law and the state law on a subject enumerated in the
Concurrent List, the Central law prevails over the state law. But, there is an
exception. If the state law has been reserved for the consideration of the president and
has received his assent, then the state law prevails in that state. But, it would still be
competent for the Parliament to override such a law by subsequently making a law on
the same matter. '3. Parliamentary Legislation in the State Field' The above scheme of
distribution of legislative powers between the Centre and the states is to be
maintained in normal times6. But, in abnormal times, the scheme of distribution is
either modified or suspended. In other words, the Constitution empowers the
Parliament to make laws on any matter enumerated in the State List under the
following five extraordinary circumstances: When Rajya Sabha Passes a Resolution
If the Rajya Sabha declares that it is necessary in the national interest that Parliament
should make laws on a matter in the State List, then the Parliament becomes
competent to make laws on that matter. Such a resolution must be supported by twothirds of the members present and voting. The resolution remains in force for one
year; it can be renewed any number of times but not exceeding one year at a time.
6

The laws cease to have effect on the expiration of six months after the resolution has
ceased to be in force7. This provision does not restrict the power of a state legislature
to make laws on the same matter. But, in case of inconsistency between a state law
and a parliamentary law, the latter is to prevail8. During a National Emergency The
Parliament acquires the power to legislate with respect to matters in the State List,
while a proclamation of national emergency is in operation. The laws become
inoperative on the expiration of six months after the emergency has ceased to operate.
Here also, the power of a state legislature to make laws on the same matter is not
restricted. But, in case of repugnancy between a state law and a parliamentary law,
the latter is to prevail. When States Make a Request When the legislatures of two or
more states pass resolutions requesting the Parliament to enact laws on a matter in the
State List, then the Parliament can make laws for regulating that matter9. A law so
enacted applies only to those states which have passed the resolutions. However, any
other state may adopt it afterwards by passing a resolution to that effect in its
legislature. Such a law can be amended or repealed only by the Parliament and not by
the legislatures of the concerned states. The effect of passing a resolution under the
above provision is that the Parliament becomes entitled to legislate with respect to a
matter for which it has no power to make a law. On the other hand, the state
legislature ceases to have the power to make a law with respect to that matter. The
resolution operates as abdication or surrender of the power of the state legislature
with respect to that matter and it is placed entirely in the hands of Parliament which
alone can then legislate with respect to it. Some examples of laws passed under the
above provision are Prize Competition Act, 1955; Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972;
Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976; and Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994. To
Implement International Agreements The Parliament can make laws on any matter in
the State List for implementing the international treaties, agreements or conventions.
This provision enables the Central government to fulfil its international obligations
and commitments. Some examples of laws enacted under the above provision are
United Nations (Privileges and Immunities) Act, 1947; Geneva Convention Act,
1960; Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982 and legislations relating to environment and TRIPS.
During Presidents Rule When the Presidents rule is imposed in a state, the
Parliament becomes empowered to make laws with respect to any matter in the State
List in relation to that state. A law made so by the Parliament continues to be
operative even after the presidents rule10. This means that the period for which such a
law remains in force is not co-terminus with the duration of the Presidents rule. But,
7
8
9
10

such a law can be repealed or altered or re-enacted by the state legislature. 4. Centres
Control Over State Legislation Besides the Parliaments power to legislate directly on
the state subjects under the exceptional situations, the Constitution empowers the
Centre to exercise control over the states legislative matters in the following ways:
(i)
The governor can reserve certain types of bills passed by the state legislature
for the consideration of the President. The president enjoys absolute veto
over them.
(ii)
Bills on certain matters enumerated in the State List can be introduced in the
state legislature only with the previous sanction of the president. (For
example, the bills imposing restrictions on the freedom of trade and
commerce). 11
(iii)
The President can direct the states to reserve money bills and other financial
bills passed by the state legislature for his consideration during a financial
emergency. From the above, it is clear that the Constitution has assigned a
position of superiority to the Centre in the legislative sphere. In this context,
the Sarkaria Commission on CentreState Relations (198387) observed:
The rule of federal supremacy is a technique to avoid absurdity, resolve
conflict and ensure harmony between the Union and state laws. If this
principle of union supremacy is excluded, it is not difficult to imagine its
deleterious results. There will be every possibility of our two-tier political
system being stultified by interference, strife, legal chaos and confusion
caused by a host of conflicting laws, much to the bewilderment of the
common citizen. Integrated legislative policy and uniformity on basic issues
of common Unionstate concern will be stymied. The federal principle of
unity in diversity will be very much a casualty. This rule of federal
supremacy, therefore, is indispensable for the successful functioning of the
federal system.12

Chapter II
Articles 256263 on Administrative Relations
Articles 256261 General
256. The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as to ensure compliance with
the laws made by Parliament and any existing laws which apply in that State, and the
executive power of the Union shall extent to the giving of such directions to a State as may
appear to the Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.

11
12

257 (1) The executive power of every State shall be so exercised as not to impede or
prejudice the exercise of the executive power of the Union, and the executive power of the
Union shall extend to the giving of such directions to a State as may appear to the
Government of India to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) The executive power of the Union shall also extend to the giving of directions to a State
as to the construction and maintenance of means of communication declared in the direction
to be of national or military importance.

Provided that nothing in this clause shall be taken restricting the power of Parliament to
declare highways or waterways to be national highways or national waterways or the power
of Union with respect to highways or waterways so declared or the power of the Union to
construct and maintain means of communication as part of its functions with respect to naval,
military and air force works.13

(3) The executive power of the Union shall also extend to the giving of directions to a State
as to the measures to be taken for the protection of the railways within the State.

(4) Wherein carrying out any direction given to a State under clause (2) as to the construction
or maintenance of any means of communication or under clause (3) as to the measures to be
taken for the protection of any railway, costs have been incurred in excess of those which
would have been incurred in the discharge of the normal duties of the State if such direction
had not been given, there shall be paid by the Government of India to the State such sum as
may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an arbitrator appointed
by the Chief Justice of India, in respect of the extra costs so incurred by the State.

Article 257A. Assistance to States by deployment of armed forces or other forces of the
Union. (Inserted by the Constitution 42nd amendment Act, 1976 and repealed by the
Constitution 44th amendment Act, 1978.

Article 258(1). Notwithstanding anything in this constitution, the President may, with the
consent of the Government of a State, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to that
Government or to its officers functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power
of the Union extends.14
13
14

(2) A law made by Parliament which applies in any State may, notwithstanding that it relates
to a matter with respect to which the Legislature of the State has no power to make laws,
confer powers and impose duties, or authorise the conferring of powers and the imposition of
duties, upon the State or officers and authorities thereof.

(3) Where by virtue of this article powers and duties have been conferred or imposed upon a
State or officers or authorities thereof, there shall be paid by the Government of India to the
State such sum as may be agreed, or, in default of agreement, as may be determined by an
arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of India, in respect of any extra costs of
administration incurred by the State in connection with the exercise of those powers and
duties.15

Article 258A. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution, the Governor of a State may,
with the consent of the Government of India, entrust either conditionally or unconditionally
to that Government or to its officers functions in relation to any matter to which the executive
power of the State extends.

(This article was inserted by the Constitution 7th amendment Act, 1956 for the reasons that,
while the President is empowered by article 258(1) to entrust Union functions to a State
Government or its officers, there is no corresponding provisions enabling the Governor of a
State to entrust State functions to the Central Government or its officers. This lacuna has been
found to be of practical consequence in connection with the execution of certain development
projects in the States. It is proposed to fill the lacuna by a new article 258A)

Article 259. Omitted by the Constitution 7th amendment Act, 1956.

Article 260. The Government of India may by agreement with the Government of any
territory not being part of the territory of India undertake any executive, legislative or judicial
functions vested in the Government of such territory, but every such agreement shall be
subject to, and governed by, any law relating to the exercise of foreign jurisdiction for the
time being in force.16

15
16

Article 261(1). Full faith and credit shall be given throughout the territory of India to public
acts, records and judicial proceedings of the Union and of every State.

(2) The manner in which and the conditions under which the acts, records and proceedings
referred to in clause (1) shall be proved and the effect thereof determined shall be as provided
by law made by Parliament.

(3) Final judgments or orders delivered or passed by civil courts in any part of the territory of
India shall be capable of execution anywhere within that territory according to law.

Article 262 on Disputes relating to waters

Article 263 on Co-ordination between States
The strength of the central government relative to the states is especially apparent in
constitutional provisions for central intervention into state jurisdictions. Article 3 of the
constitution authorizes Parliament, by a simple majority vote, to establish or eliminate states
and union territories or change their boundaries and names. The emergency powers granted to
the central government by the constitution enable it, under certain circumstances, to acquire
the powers of a unitary state. The central government can also dismiss a state government
through President's Rule. Article 249 of the constitution enables a two-thirds vote of the
Rajya Sabha to empower Parliament to pass binding legislation for any of the subjects on the
State List. Articles 256 and 257 require states to comply with laws passed by Parliament and
with the executive authority of the central government. The articles empower the central
government to issue directives instructing states on compliance in these matters. Article 200
also enables a state governor, under certain circumstances, to refuse to give assent to bills
passed by the state legislature and instead refer them to the president for review.17

The central government exerts control over state governments through the financial resources
at its command. The central government distributes taxes and grants-in-aid through the
decisions of finance commissions, usually convened every five years as stipulated by Article
275. The central government also distributes substantial grants through its development plans
as elaborated by the Planning Commission. The dependence of state governments on grants
and disbursements grew throughout the 1980s as states began to run up fiscal deficits and the
share of transfers from New Delhi increased. The power and influence of central government
finances also can be seen in the substantial funds allocated under the central government's

17

five-year plans to such areas as public health and agriculture that are constitutionally under
the State List.18

Centre's Control Over State Legislation

Besides the Parliament's power to legislate directly on the state subjects under the exceptional
situations, the Constitution empowers the Centre to exercise control over the state's
legislative matters in the following ways:

(i) The governor can reserve certain types of bills passed by the state legislature for the
consideration of the President.
The president enjoys absolute veto over them.

(ii) Bills on certain matters enumerated in the State List can be introduced in the state
legislature only with the previous sanction of the president. (For example, the bills imposing
restrictions on the freedom of trade and commerce).

(iii) The President can direct the states to reserve money bills and other financial bills passed
by the state legislature for his consideration during a financial emergency.

From the above, it is clear that the Constitution has assigned a position of superiority to the
Centre in the legislative sphere. In this context, the Sarkaria Commission on CentreState
Relations (1983-87) observed: "The rule of federal supremacy is a technique to avoid
absurdity, resolve conflict and ensure harmony between the Union and state laws. If this
principle of union supremacy is excluded, it is not difficult to imagine its deleterious results.19

There will be every possibility of our two-tier political system being stultified by
interference, strife, legal chaos and confusion caused by a host of conflicting laws, much to
the bewilderment of the common citizen. Integrated legislative policy and uniformity on
basic issues of common Unionstate concern will be stymied. The federal principle of unity
in diversity will be very much a casualty. This rule of federal supremacy, therefore, is
indispensable for the successful functioning of the federal system"20
18
19

SARKARIA COMISSION ON CENTRE-STATE

ADMINISTRATIVE RELATIONS IN RESPECT OF PUBLIC
ORDER DUTIESOne of the major areas of centre-state confrontation in Indian federal polity relates to suo
motu deployment of union armed forces in a state for public order duties.
Since the commencement of the constitution, the union government deployed the CRPF ,suo
motu; on three occasions ,
Kerala in 1968 -protection of its offices and property there during the strike of central
government employees,
twice in west Bengal in 1969- protection of farakka barrage and in connection with clashes
between the workers of Durgapur steel plant and the U.P provincial armed constabutory
stationed by the union government at the plant.
Both Kerala and west Bengal were then ruled by the opposition parties, and the congress
government at the centre in the first two cases, did not agree with the demand of the state
government for the withdrawal of the CRPF , but in the third case, agreed to do so.
In all these cases , observed Sarkaria comission,"It seems that care was taken by the Union
government not to provoke confrontation with the state governments concerned and
precipitate a costitutional crisis. "
However , the fact remains that in all these events there was a sharp resistance from the state
government to suo motu deployment of union armed forces which resulted in intense Union
State controversy on the role and the use of CRPF.

20

CASES:
1. K.K. Aboo vs. Union of lndia (1965)27
FactsIn this Case are that a general election of Legislative Assembly was held in February , March,
1965, for the purpose of constituting a new Legislative Assembly in the State, but it led to an
inconclusive result as it gave no clear majority to any political party. The CPI(M) had won
fourty seats in the House of 103 and had emerged as the single largest party. The then
Governor of Kerala, A.P. Jain, after a brief discussion with leaders of various political parties
regarding the formation of a ministry, reported to the President that no political party could
form a stable government in the existing circumstances. Consequently, President's Rule was
imposed in Kerala on March 24, 1965 along with the dissolution of the State Legislative
Assembly.
Issue Whether could State legislature be dissolved without meeting at all?
Whether Could a Proclamation under Article 356 be issued when the state concerned was
already under President's Rule?
What is the necessity of having a sitting Legislative Assembly at the time of
Proclamation?
ReasoningThe High court held that Article 356 of the Constitution does not prescribe any condition for
the exercise of powers there under by the President, except the satisfaction of the

President 'that a situation has arisen in which the government of the State cannot be carried
on in

accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

The Court also ruled that the power to dissolve the State Legislature is implicit in clause (I)
(b)

of Article 356 itself and there is no need for the President to read the provisions of Article
356(I)

(a) with Article 172 or Article 174 to dissolve the State Legislative Assembly. The Court held

that "Article 356 (1) (b) empowers the President. Whenever he is satisfied of a constitutional

breakdown in the State, to issue a Proclamation declaring, inter alia, 'that the powers of the

Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament. That

necessarily implies a power to dissolve the State Legislature. No resort therefore need be had
by

the President to the provisions of Article 356 (I) (a) read with Article 172 or Article 174 to

dissolve the State Legislative Assembly. The power to dissolve the State Legislature is
implicit

in clause (1) (b) of Article 356 itself. "28

Conclusion -The petition was dismissed without any interim relief as prayed for by the
petitioner

and all grounds of challenge to the Proclamation were struck down thereby upholding the

Constitutionality of the Proclamation. The Court enumerated the principle that the
Proclamation

under Article 356 is not justifiable, because it is depend on the personal satisfaction of the

President, who was a Constitutional head. So the Court cannot not inquire the
Constitutionality

of that Proclamation. However, the Parliament can inquire the Proclamation regarding

President's Rule.

2. Rao Birendra Singh vs. Union of India (1968)29

Facts- In Haryana (1967), the Congress Party formed the Government, but it got ousted from

power owing to defections of the MLAs. Then, the SVD leader Rao Birendra Singh formed
the

28 K.K. Aboo vs. Union of India, A.I.R, 1965 Kerala, 231

29 Rao Birendra Singh vs. Union of India, AIR, 1968, Punjab & Haryana

15 | Page

government in the State. Defections and counter-defections continued in both the Congress
and

the SVD. Consequently, the Governor of Haryana sent a report to the Centre about the
political

situation of the State. The Governor highlighted the need for a clean and efficient
administration

and stated in his report that a fresh election under the President's Rule was the only solution
of

political instability in the State. The Centre considered the Governor's report and the
President's

Rule was imposed on November 21, 1967 along with the dissolution of the State Assembly.

Issue-

Whether the decision of the imposition of Presidents Rule in Haryana and claimed that he

had a majority in the Legislative Assembly, hence President's Rule could not be imposed?

Reasoning-The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that the President issued the
Proclamation

under his constitutional power (Article 356). So, the President is out of jurisdiction of the
Court

in view of Article 361. Thus, the Court cannot go into the validity of his Proclamation. The

Parliament can discuss the grounds of the Proclamation on the question of approval or
otherwise

of the Proclamation.

The Court ruled that the Parliament can reconsider the Proclamation and it is out of the

jurisdiction of this Court. The Court held that "The reconsideration of the Proclamation has

specifically been vested by the Constitution in Parliament and that, in my opinion, excludes
the

jurisdiction in this Court in so far as the Proclamation is concerned in that respect. Nothing
has

been said against the power of Parliament to approve or to withhold approval of the

Proclamation".30

The Court ruled that he cannot enquire into any advice of the Union Council of Ministers

rendered to the President regarding to the issue of Proclamation under Article 356 in view of

Article 74 (2). The Court held that "This Court has no jurisdiction in view of Article 74 (2)
even

to inquire whether he rendered any adviceto the President in regard to the issue of the

Proclamation".31

30 Rao Birendra Singh vs. Union of India, AIR, 1968, Punjab & Haryana

31 Ibid, p. 450

16 | Page

Conclusion- Thus, the Court dismissed the petition here again. The Court considered that the

Proclamation under Article 356 is not-justiciable, because the satisfaction of the President

regarding Article 356 is out of jurisdiction to the Court.

3. Sreeramulu vs. Union of India (1974)32

Facts- President's Rule was imposed in Andhra Pradesh on January 18, 1974 exploring the

possibility of the formation of an alternative ministry; when Minister resigned under the

instruction of Congress High Command. The crisis in the leadership of the State Congress

legislature party: the Narasimha Rao had lost the confidence of the majority of members
because

partican attitude on the Mulki Rules issue.

Issues- Whether the Government of the State is in accordance with the provisions of the

Constitution?

Reasoning- The Court ruled that the Parliament is the final arbiter of the satisfaction of the

President, and that the Court can never review the Proclamation regarding the President's
Rule.

The Court held that "The President is the Head of the State that is entrusted with the
discharge of

the duty and the fact that it is the Parliament that is the final arbiter lead to the inevitable

conclusion that the Court can never go behind the proclamation issued by the President."

The Court ruled that he cannot go into the question of mala fide or otherwise reasons for the

action under Article 356 though it could go into the question of ultra vires. The Court held
that

"The Court was incompetent to go into the question of mala fide or probe into the reasons for
the

action of the President though it could go into the question of ultra vires."33

Conclusion- The petition was dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Court did

not give any relief to the petitioner.

4. Bijayananda vs. President of India (1974)34

32 Sreeramlul Vs.. Union of India, AIR, 1974, Andhra Pradesh,

33 Sreeramlul Vs.. Union of India, AIR, 1974, Andhra Pradesh, p. 111

34 Bijayananda vs. President of India, AIR, 1974, Orissa, 52, vol. 61C

17 | Page

Facts- In Orissa (1974), the Congress Party government led by Nandini Satpathi got reduced
to

minority in 1973 owing to defections from the Congress Party. Consequently, the Chief
Minister

had to resign. On the contrary, Bijayananda Patnaik, the leader of the Pragati Party, who

commanded strength of 70 MLA's in a House of 140 (including the Speaker), staked claimed
to

form a government. However, the State Governor did not invite Bijayananda Patnaik to form
the

Government. He thought that the government formed by Bijayananda would not remain in
office

for a long time owing to the ongoing defections of the MLAs. The Governor preferred to

recommend the imposition of President's Rule in Orissa along with dissolution of the State

Legislative Assembly. Consequently, President's Rule was imposed in Orissa on March 3,

1973

and the State Legislative Assembly was dissolved.

Issue- Whether the Proclamation of the President regarding the imposition of President's Rule
in

Orissa is valid?

Reasoning- The Orissa High Court rejected the challenge of the Proclamation of imposition
of

President's Rule in Orissa on March 3, 1973. The Court ruled that the Proclamation is not

justiciable on the following grounds.

(a) The wide source of information as contemplated by the expression 'otherwise' gives ample

indication that the President's satisfaction is not justiciable.

(b) The satisfaction and the basis of satisfaction are both subjective and are not subject to
judicial

review.

(c) In view of the provisions under Article 74 (2) and Article 361 (I) the Court is not in a
position

to test the grounds of satisfaction. (d) The fact that its continuance after two months has been

subjected to Parliamentary approval gives a further indication that it is not justiciable in

Court.

(e) The emergency provisions under Articles 352, 356 and 360 in Chapter XVIII of the

Constitution are not justiciable.

(f) The satisfaction of the President is integrally connected with the question of enforcing the

convention on the Governor's failure to call the leader of the Opposition to form the Ministry.

18 | Page

The convention being not enforceable, the satisfaction based on a decision whether to honour
the

convention or not, is equally unenforceable.

Conclusion- The writ petition was dismissed by the Court by saying that there was no ground
for

interference for the Court.

5. State of Rajasthan vs. Union of India (1977)35

Facts- The ruling Congress Party at the Centre was defeated in the Lok Sabha elections held
in

March, 1977 and the Janata Party came to power at the Centre. On April 17, 1977, the then

Union Minister for Horne Affairs, Charan Singh, wrote a letter dated 18.04.1977 requesting
the

Chief Minister of nine States ruled by Congress Party, viz., Bihar, U.P., H.P . M.P . Haryana.

Orissa, Punjab, Rajasthan and West Bengal, to advise the Governors of their respective States
to

dissolve the Assemblies of those States and to seek fresh mandate from the electorate on the

ground that the electorate had virtually rejected the ruling party in those States in the Lok
Sabha

elections. Six of these nine States. viz . Rajasthan, M.P., Punjab, Bihar, H.P. and Orissa filed

suits under Article 131 of the Constitution in the Supreme Court praying for a declaration that

the letter of the Horne Minister was illegal, and ultra vires of the Constitution and prayed for
an

interim injunction restraining the Union Government from taking any step to dissolve their

Assemblies before the expiry of their term fixed by the Constitution.

Issues-

(i) Whether the letter of Union Home Minister, Charan Singh, dated April 18, 1977, discloses
the

sole ground of an impending proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution to be

followed

by a dissolution of the Legislative Assembly of the State concerned and that such a
proclamation,

resulting necessarily in the dismissal of the Ministries in the six States and the dissolution of

their Legislative Assemblies upon the grounds given in the letter, is prima facie outside the

purview of Article 356 ?

(ii) Whether in any case, the condition precedent to the dissolution of the State Legislative

Assemblies is a ratification by both Houses of Parliament of the Presidential action under

Article

35 State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1977 SC

19 | Page

356 so that no dissolution, at any rate, of a Legislative Assembly can take place without

ascertaining the wishes of both the Houses of Pariliament?

(iii) Whether the grounds given being outside the constitutionally authorised purposes and

objectives make the proposed action, on the face of it, mala fide and unconstitutional?

Reasoning- Goswami. Fazal Ali and Untwalia, J.J., were of the view that the plaintiffs had no

locus standi to maintain the suit. Untwalia did not want to rest his judgement on this technical

ground alone. M.H. Beg, C.J. and Fazal Ali, J. held that the suit was premature. There was

general agreement among all the judges that the matter in question was beyond the range of

Judicial review either because it was of a political nature, regarding which the President's

subjective satisfaction was conclusive, or was otherwise non-justiciable in view of the bar to
the

Courts' jurisdiction in clause (5) of the Article. They observed. "Article 356(1) calls for an

assessment of a 'situation'. In so far as Article 356(1) may embrace matters of political and

executive policy and expediency courts cannot interfere with these unless and until it is
shown

what constitutional provision the President is going to contravene or has contravened on

admitted grounds of action under Article 356(I) for, while Article 74(2) disables Courts from

inquiring into the very existence or nature or contents of ministerial advice to the President.

Article 356(5) makes it impossible for Courts to question the President's satisfaction on any

ground".36

However the Court made it clear that the President's 'satisfaction' would be open to judicial

review only in those exceptional cases where on facts admitted or disclosed, it was
manifested

that it was mala fide or was based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds. P.N. Bhagwati

and A.C. Gupta, J.J., observed : "If the satisfaction is mala fide or is based on wholly
extraneous

and irrelevant grounds, the Court would have jurisdiction to examine it... The satisfaction of
the

President is a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Art 356, clause (1) and if it
can

be shown that there is no satisfaction of the President at all, the exercise of the power would
be

constitutionally invalid."

36 State of Rajasthan v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1977 SC 1362

20 | Page

The Court ruled that the total and massive defeat of the ruling party in the Lok Sabha
elections

shows the complete alienation between the Government and the people and it is a relevant

ground for taking action under Article 356 (1). The Court ruled that the use of words "or

otherwise", as to Article 356 (1) calls on the President to consider materials and resources
other

than the Governor's report. But at the same time, in practice, this ambiguous phrase has given

assaults to the federal principles of Government. The Court held that "the usual practice is
that

the President acts under Article 356 (1) of the Constitution only on the Governor's report.
But,

the use of the words 'or otherwise' show that Presidential satisfaction could be based on other

materials as well. This feature of our Constitution indicates most strikingly the extent to
which

inroads have been made by it on the federal principles of Government."37

Conclusion- The Court dismissed the case unanimously, but the observations made by the
Court

are very important. For the first time the Court started judicial review of Presidential

proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution. The Court made it clear that the
President's

satisfaction under Article 356 would be open to judicial review, where facts admitted was

malafide or it was based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds. Thus, exercise of

President's power under Article 356 was brought under judicial review to that extent.

6. Sunderlal Patwa vs. Union of India (1993)38

Facts- After the demolition of the Sabri Masjid at Ayodhya (6th December, 1992) President's

Rule were imposed in Madhya Pradesh on 15th December, 1992. The then Governor of
Madhya

Pradesh. Kunwar Mahmood Ali Khan, in his letter to the President has mentioned the acts of

omissions and commissions on the part of the State, but he didn't specify them. The Governor

also stated in his report that the Sunderlal Patwa government had soft reaction to the RSS (a

banned organisation).

Issues- Whether the Proclamation of President's Rule in M.P. is valid was challenged in the
M.P.

High Court?

37 Ibdi, 1364

38 Sunderlal Patwa vs. Union of India, AIR, 1993, Madhya Pradesh,

21 | Page

Reasoning- The Court held that "The Satisfaction reached by the President is issuing the

Presidential Proclamation dated December 15, 1992 imposing Presidential Rule in the State
of

M.P. and dissolving the State Assembly, on the advice of the Cabinet, is based on
circumstances

not relevant for invoking Article 356 of the Constitution of India and is therefore liable to be

quashed".39

The report of the State Governor regarding the deterioration of law and order situation in
Bhopal

and two other cities of Madhya Pradesh after the demolition of the Sabri Masjid at Ayodhya
on

December 6, 1992, could not itself be a relevant cause for the imposition of Presidents Rule
in

M.P. on December 15, 1992. Neither the report of the State Governor nor any other sources

could prove the failure of constitutional machinery in the State. So the Proclamation of the

President did not hold ground and it should be quashed. The Court held that, "The Governor's

reports on the worsening of the law and order situation in Bhopal and two other cities of
Madhya

Pradesh as aftermath of Ayodhya incident, could not in itself constitute a relevant material

having a reasonable nexus for the satisfaction of the President in imposing his rule in the
State of

Madhya Pradesh. There is no other material in existence-either in the report of the Governor
or

from any other sources-to hold that the Government in the State of Madhya Pradesh could not
be

carried on in accordance with the Constitution and that there was failure of the constitutional

machinery in the State. Failure on part of the State Government to save the lives and
properties

of citizens in few cities, as a result of sudden out-break of violence could not reasonably lead
to

the satisfaction of the President that the Government was unable to function in accordance
with

the Constitution. The Presidential Proclamation is therefore liable to be quashed.

The Court held that "There was also no occasion to raise any inference of failure of

constitutional machinery under Art. 365 of the Constitution because there were no Central

directives, which were disobeyed or disrespected by the State of Madhya Pradesh".40

Conclusion- The Court ordered to restore the dismissed Ministry as also the dissolved

Assembly. The judgement of M.P. High Court is a "significant milestone in legal history".
Since

it is the first case where the Court struck down a Presidential proclamation as
unconstitutional,

39 Sunderlal Patwa vs. Union of India, AIR, 1993, Madhya Pradesh, vol. 80,p.217

40 Sunderlal Patwa vs. Union of India, AIR, 1993, Madhya Pradesh, vol. 80,p.217

22 | Page

null and void. Later this judgement was challenged in Supreme Court in the S.R. Bommai
case

(1994) and the Supreme Court set aside this judgement.

7. S.R. Bommai vs. Union oflndia (1994)41

Facts- The situation in Karnataka in 1989 April was clogged and led to state emergency u/art

356(1). This proclamation was thereafter confirmed by the Parliament.The situation which
led to

state emergency was that S.R.Bommai a personal of Janta Party formed the government in
1988,

but subsequently joined the Lok Dal forming a collision government as Janta Dal.But soon
there

were bifurcations amongst the party members leading to fall of the Government. Therefore
the

President had to proclaim emergency. This proclamation was challenged through Writ
Petition

but the High Court dismissed the Petition. Hence appeal to Supreme Court.

Issues-

1. Whether President Proclamation u/art 356 is justified?

2. Whether the President has unrestricted power to proclaim emergency?

3. Whether the proclamation can be challenged even after approved by both the houses of

Parliament?

Reasoning- The Court interpreted Article 356 and ruled that the failure of State Government
to

comply with or to give effect to directions issued by Union Government are not the only
grounds.

B.P. Jeevan Reddy and S.C. Agrawal, J.J., held that "Article 356 merely says that in case of
failure

to comply with the directions given, 'It shall be lawful for the President to hold that the
requisite

type of situation has arisen.The President has to judge in each case whether it has so arisen.
Article

365 says it is permissible for him to say so in such a case. The discretion is still there and has
to be

exercised fairly."42

The Court ruled that the Legislative Assembly of a State coming under President's Rule
should not

be dissolved until Presidential Proclamation is approved by the Parliament, till this approval,
the

President can only suspend the Assembly. P.B. Sawant and Kuldip Singh, J.J., held that "The

41 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1

42 S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1,1918

23 | Page

President shall exercise the Governor's power of dissolving the Legislative Assembly till at
least

both the Houses of Parliament have approved of the Proclamation issued by him under clause
(I)

of the Article 356. The dissolution of the assembly prior to the approval of the proclamation
by the

Parliament under clause (3) of the said Article will be per se invalid. The President may,
however,

have the power of suspending the Legislature under subclause (C) of clause (I) of the said

Article."43

The Court ruled that the validity of Proclamation issued by the President imposing President's
Rule

is judicially reviewable. P.B. Sawant and Kuldip Singh, J.J., held, "The exercise of power by
the

President under Article 356(1) to issue Proclamation is subject to judicial review at least to
the

extent of examining whether the conditions precedent to the issuance of the Proclamation
have

been satisfied or not. This examination will necessarily involve the scrutiny as to whether
there

existed material for the satisfaction of the President that a situation had arisen in which the

Government of the State could not be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the

Constitution. The legitimacy of inference drawn from such material is certainly open to
judicial

review."Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy also supported this opinion. He observed, "The
Proclamation

under Article 356(1) is not immune from judicial review. The Supreme Court or the High
Court

can strike down the proclamation if it is found to be mala fide or based on wholly irrelevant
or

extraneous grounds."44

It is obvious that the action of the President under Article 356 is judicially reviewable and
Court

can restore the status quo ante. As Durga Das Basu observed, It is clear that judicial review of
a

Proclamation under Article 356 would lie on any of the grounds upon which an executive

detennination which is founded on subjective satisfaction can be questioned, e.g. (a) It was
issued

on the basis of no material at all, (b) Where there is no 'reasonable nexus' between the reasons

disclosed and the satisfaction of the President, (c) That the exercise of the power under
Article 356

has been mala tide, because a statutory order which lacks bona fides has no existence in law.

Conclusion-

The judgement of Bommai Case (1994) is a land mark judgement, which strengths the
principles

of federal democracy in the country. The political significance of the judgement is that it will
act

as a bar on arbitrary dismissal of duly elected State governments by the Union Government
for

43 Ibdi, pg. 1919

44 Idbi, 191

24 | Page

fulfilling its political ends. As K. Suryaprasad observed, The general principles and
guidelines

which have been laid down by Supreme Court in the Bommai case will help to strengthen
national

unity and integrity, to sharply limit the constitutional power vested in the union government
to

dismiss State Governments and to prevent the arbitrary and whimsical use of the power of the

Governors in the name of exercising their discretionary powers conferred by the Constitution
and

conventions.

8. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT VERDICT (1996)

The three member bench of the Allahabad High Court unanimously held that the impugned

Presidential proclamation dated October 17, 1996 reimposing President's Rule in Uttar
Pradesh

and subsequently approved by Parliament was unconstitutional, issued in colourable exercise

of

power and was based on wholly irrelevant and extraneous grounds and, therefore, could not
be

allowed to stand. Consequently, the Proclamation was quashed. Justice B.M. La I observed.
The

Governor of Uttar Pradesh was constitutionally not bound to invite the single largest party to
form

a government, in case it did not have the confidence of the House. But at the same time he
was

constitutionally bound and obliged to explore all possibilities.

9. BIHAR ASSEMBLY DISSOLUTION CASE (2005)

Facts- In Bihar (2005), after general elections of the State Legislative Assembly in February,

2005, there emerged a hung assembly and there was no political party or coalition having a
clear

majority to form a stable government in the State. The UPA government at the Centre,

recommended the dissolution of State Assembly on the basis of two reports sent by State

Governor, Buta Singh. on April 27 and May 21, 2005. These reports became the subject
matter of

litigation in a batch of petitions, which questioned the legality and constitutionality of the

Proclamation of the President.

Issue-

whether the dissolution of Assembly under Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India can
be

ordered to prevent the staking of claim by a political party on the ground that the majority

has been obtained by illegal means?

Reasoning- The legal experts expressed divergent opinions on the Bihar Assembly
dissolution

Case 2005. Shanti Shushan has opined, The decision of the Supreme Court is not logical one.
If the

25 | Page

dissolution is unconstitutional, then the Assembly elections this will constitute a new
assembly.

Then, will there be two sets of assembly in existence. However, the way horse-trading of the
MLA

's was going on, the Governor was left with no alternative. Laxmi Mal Singhavi has opined, It

would be better if the Supreme Court had nulled the coming Assembly elections. P.N. Lekhi
has

opined. The Assembly was not formally constituted; so could the Governor dissolve it? Anil

Diwan has opined, When the Governor's action of dissoluti,on of the Assembly has been
declared

illegal, then it would be better that it was reinstated. Similarly the political parties gave varied

opinions. Arun Jaitley, Secretary General of BJP, said. The decision of imposition of
President's

Rule in Bihar was of the Governor. the Centre and the RJD party and all these there are
culpable.

Now the Centre should clarify their stance besides calling back the Governor. Ambika Soni.

Secretary General of Congress (1), said, The decision should not be taken as against Congress

Party. When someone becomes a Governor, then he stops working on the party line. Prakash

Karat, Secretary General of CPI-M, said, the arbitrary execution of the powers of the
Governor and

his discretion should end. For this. sincere effort should be made to change the institution of

Governor.

Conclusion- the Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution has t:ome
under

judicial review. The Supreme Court and the High Courts can strike down the Proclamation
when it

is mala fide or based on irrelevant material and restore the status quo ante, i.e., restore the

Legislative Assembly and the Ministry of the State concerned. The Court can also stress that

question of majority of the Council of Ministers of the State must be decided on the floor of
the

Assembly and not anywhere else. Therefore the Union Government cannot act arbitrarily. As
A.G.

Noorani pointed out ''Once the doors to judicial review are thrown open, everything will be

exposed to the scrutiny of the courts and to the glare of public opinion. No government of
India

can act arbitrarily as was the case with governments in the past. This does not weaken the
authority

of the president. It fortifies it."

10. Gokulnanda Roy v. Tarapada Mukherjee45

It was urged before the High court that it was the president alone who had to form an opinion

about the necessity of instituting an inquiry, though the power to constitute the commission of

inquiry was delegated to the governor. The high court held that where the power to appoint a

45 AIR 1973cal 233

26 | Page

commission of inquiry stands delegated to the governor by the president, the duty and the

statutory obligation to form an opinion about the necessity of such an inquiry cannot remain

vested in the President. Besides, by the virtue of Article 154(1), delegation of the functions of

state Government to the governor of the state would include within its ambit the power to
form

an opinion about necessity of an inquiry under the commissions of Inquiry Act.

11. Nishi kanta Mondal v. state of W.B46

It was argued that if a proclamation made under clause (1), of Article 356 is revoked

subsequently by another proclamation made under clause (2) an act enacted by the President
in

exercise of the powers conferred on him by a law made by parliament under clause(1)(b) of
the

same article ceases to have effect. The Supreme Court, negativing such a contention, held that

such an Act. In view of the provisions of clause (2) of Article 357, shall continue to remain in

force in spite of the revocation of the proclamation unless the Act is repealed or re-enacted
with

or without modification by an act of the appropriate legislature.