State of Rajasthan v Union of India o Facts
Before this case, HCs were invited to look into Article 356 & none intervened on the ground of the Parliament being there.
The first time suit filed in the SC, the LS was dismissed but the State governments continued to exist.
The JP government at the Centre dismissed these State governments because they did not have the requisite majority in the Electoral College so as to gain an upper hand in the Presidential elections.
They also lacked a majority in the RS & thought that if the 9 State governments became JP governments, it would help them get their Bills passed in RS.
Charan Singh advised the 9 CMs to step down because the LS elections had given the JP a mandate.
Later, the Law Minister said that if friendly advice was not heeded, President’s Rule would be imposed.
o The petitioning CMs wanted the SC to decide on 2 grounds.
Losing the LS elections is no ground for the imposition of Article 356.
Before President’s Rule is declared, the Parliament’s should approve it.
o The 7-judge bench of the SC heard the arguments & rejected the contentions of the petitioners, endorsing the actions of the Centre.
o Consequences
After the SC order, President’s Rule was declared, new elections were held without the approval of the Parliament & new Assemblies were inducted.
o Circumstances
The 1977 elections were a constitutional watershed.
3 out of 7 judges of the bench were part of the ADM, Jabalpur v Shiv Kant Shukla case.
Beg, C.J.I. was also part of the supersession episode.
o Comments
The SC should have said that the matter was premature &
disallowed the petition.
The letter written by the Home Minister could be considered as a directive which the States had not performed & hence Article 356 was imposed.
The SC was unable to decide very effectively as to what extent the Courts could intervene judicially & lacked clarity as to the stand they should take.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that Courts will not interfere under ordinary circumstances.
The Courts can intervene on the issue of whether the government has acted as per the Constitution.
The Courts cannot intervene on the issue of whether the government has acted incorrectly or correctly.
o Positive Aspect
though they were able to define it well.
If powers are given to administrative authority, the one cannot go to the Courts.
o The Courts can only look into whether the administrative authority has acted within the corners of the law.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Pvt. Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation o Facts
Under law, Wednesbury Corporation had authority to give license to movie halls for Sunday screenings as per its conditions.
Wednesbury Coroporation gave licenses subject to the issue that the hall will not allow entry for children under the age of 15.
This was challenged.
o It was held that the Courts will not look into whether the condition was justified & will only look intervene in extraordinary circumstances, i.e.
when the decision of the corporation is perverse & opposed to rationality.
o It was said that the Courts will only look into whether Wednesday Corporation worked as per the law.
After the UK became a member of the EU, the understanding of reasonability is determined by proportionality.
In the case of S. R. Bommai v Union of India, it was said, 2 dissenting judges apart, that there must be a difference between ground of scrutiny & standard of scrutiny.
Civil Service Union v Minister for Civil Services
o The House of Lords said that there are statutory powers & prerogative powers & that the exercise of the latter is not beyond judicial review.
o On the issue of whether the right to form a union can be taken away, the House of Lords said that they will draw a line for the exercise of prerogative powers.
In the US, where Article 4 of their Constitution is similar to Article 356 of our Constitution, the Courts have always refused to intervene & have left it to Congress.
S. R. Bommai v Union of India
o 6 states were involved; 3 in each category.
o The 3 States in the first category were U.P., Rajasthan & M.P. & the facts regarding these States are as follows.
The U.P. CM resigned after the Babri Masjid demolition without waiting for his dismissal.
The only thing wrong with the first category States was that those ministers belonged to the BJP, which was also in power in U.P.
It was not the government but the party that was guilty.
Strictly following the law, the BJP should have been outlawed.
o The SC unanimously upheld the dismissal of these governments & did not scrutinize the grounds for dismissal.
o The 3 States in the second category were Karnataka, Meghalaya &
Nagaland.
The only thing common between these States was that defections had taken place.
The issue was whether the government had ceased to exist or should the new government which had come into existence be allowed to continue.
Karnataka
The Janata government was dismissed because a few MLAs defected.
Meghalaya
There were perpetual defections.
The opposition government suffered.
Nagaland
There were perpetual defections.
The Congress government suffered.
o The SC held that the dismissals were invalid.
o On the issue of the scope of judicial review, all agreed that Courts had the power to judicial review & that the scope was wider than that laid down in the case of State of Rajasthan v Union of India.
o The SC also stated that constitutional law & administrative law are different because the standard of scrutiny in constitutional law under Article 356 cannot be as strict as the Courts exercised in ordinary cases of administrative law.
o Comments
The decision regarding Karnataka is technically correct but the Governor should allow for a floor test before he reaches any decision.
The decision of the SC as per constitutional law requirements is wrong, but in the prevailing political situation of India, it has been largely welcomed by the public.
S R Bommai Guidelines