2006 (1) TMI 604 - SC - Indian Laws

Governor's Discretionary Powers Limited: Upholding Democratic Principles

The court invalidated the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly, emphasizing the Governor's actions must be based on verified and relevant material. It ... 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? Is it permissible to dissolve the Legislative Assembly under Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution without its first meeting taking place? Whether the proclamation dated 23rd May, 2005 dissolving the Assembly of Bihar is illegal and unconstitutional? If the answer to the aforesaid question is in affirmative, is it necessary to direct status quo ante as on 7th March, 2005 or 4th March, 2005? What is the scope of Article 361 granting immunity to the Governor? Issues Involved:1. Disqualification under the Tenth Schedule2. Governor's report and its validity3. Scope of judicial review under Article 3564. Governor's discretionary power and its implications5. Role of political parties and morality in governance6. Proclamation under Article 356 and its consequences7. Constitutionality of the Governor's actions8. Immunity under Article 361Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Disqualification under the Tenth Schedule:Clause (b) of sub-para (1) of Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule imposes disqualification on a Member who votes or abstains from voting contrary to 'any directions' issued by the political party. Exceptions include prior permission from the political party or subsequent condonation. The provision aims to address party loyalty and prevent defection. The judgment emphasizes that the stage of preventing members from voting against declared policies had not been reached, and it was for the members to face legal consequences if they voted in a manner risking disqualification.2. Governor's Report and Its Validity:The Governor's reports dated 27th April and 21st May, 2005, suggested attempts to form a majority through 'various means' and 'horse-trading.' The court found no relevant material to support these claims. The Governor's actions were seen as an attempt to prevent a political party from staking a claim to form the government, which was described as mala fide. The judgment highlights that the Governor's report should be based on verified and relevant material, and undue haste in recommending dissolution was criticized.3. Scope of Judicial Review under Article 356:Article 356 confers power on the President to issue a proclamation in case of failure of constitutional machinery in a state. Judicial review is limited to examining whether the proclamation was issued on any material at all, whether the material was relevant, or whether the proclamation was issued in mala fide exercise of power. The judgment reiterates that the court can scrutinize the material basis for the President's satisfaction but not the advice given by the Council of Ministers.4. Governor's Discretionary Power and Its Implications:The Governor's discretionary power under Article 356 is subject to judicial review. The court held that the Governor's satisfaction must be based on objective material. The judgment criticized the Governor for acting on unverified information and not allowing the Chief Minister to prove majority on the floor of the House. The Governor's undue haste and failure to explore all possibilities of forming a government were seen as improper.5. Role of Political Parties and Morality in Governance:The judgment discusses the importance of political parties in a parliamentary democracy and the relevance of party loyalty. It acknowledges the changing concept of morality in politics, especially in coalition governance. The court emphasizes that the Governor cannot refuse the formation of a government based on subjective assessment of the majority being obtained by illegal means.6. Proclamation under Article 356 and Its Consequences:The judgment invalidates the proclamation dated 23rd May, 2005, dissolving the Bihar Assembly, describing it as unconstitutional. It highlights that the Governor's report lacked relevant material and was based on assumptions. The court stresses that the extraordinary power under Article 356 should not be exercised lightly and must be based on cogent material.7. Constitutionality of the Governor's Actions:The court found the Governor's actions in recommending dissolution to be mala fide and aimed at preventing a political party from staking a claim to form the government. The judgment underscores that the Governor's role is to preserve democracy and not to act on unverified information or assumptions.8. Immunity under Article 361:Article 361 grants immunity to the Governor, making him not answerable to any court for the exercise and performance of his powers and duties. However, this immunity does not bar the court from examining the validity of the Governor's actions, including on the grounds of mala fides. The judgment clarifies that while the Governor enjoys personal immunity, the actions taken can still be scrutinized for their constitutionality.Conclusion:The judgment invalidates the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly, emphasizing the need for the Governor's actions to be based on verified and relevant material. It underscores the limited scope of judicial review under Article 356 and the importance of preserving democratic principles in the exercise of discretionary powers by the Governor. The judgment also highlights the role of political parties and the evolving concept of morality in governance.