Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, on dissolution of the House of the People, the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, ceases to hold office under the Constitution.
Analysis: The constitutional scheme was read as establishing a parliamentary executive in which the President acts on the aid and advice of a Council of Ministers under Article 74(1). Article 75(3), which embodies collective responsibility to the House of the People, was construed in harmony with Articles 74(1) and 75(2), so that the responsibility requirement operates when the House is in existence and capable of confidence or censure. On dissolution, the House cannot sustain or withdraw confidence, and the doctrine of collective responsibility does not produce an automatic vacancy in ministerial office. The Court also noted that the remaining constitutional provisions on executive business and the Prime Minister's duties continue to operate coherently on this interpretation.
Conclusion: The Prime Minister does not cease to hold office merely because the House of the People is dissolved, and the challenge to her continuance in office fails.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 75(3) must be construed harmoniously with Articles 74(1) and 75(2) so that collective responsibility to the House of the People operates only while the House is in existence and does not ively terminate the Council of Ministers upon dissolution.