STATE OF RAJASTHAN V. UNION OF INDIA, AIR 1977 SC 1361

FACTS OF THE CASE 

 When the general elections took place for Lok Sabha in 1977, the Congress Party was poorly routed in several countries by the Janata Party. The ultimate win formed the government at the centre. In these countries the Congress Governments were performing at that time and they still had further time to run out for completion of their full term. The Central Home Minister, Charan Singh wrote a letter to each of the Chief Ministers of the States suggesting that they should seek dissolution of the state council from the Governor and gain fresh accreditation from the electorate. The State of Rajasthan, along with several other affected countries, filed an original suit under Composition 131 of the Constitution against the Union of India soliciting the Court to declare this directive of the Central Home Minister as unconstitutional and illegal. The State of Rajasthan, along with several other affected countries, filed an original suit under Composition 131 of the Constitution against the Union of India soliciting the Court to declare this directive of the Central Home Minister as unconstitutional and illegal. 

 ISSUE:  whether the duty of President rule in countries is reviewable by the bar? 

 JUDGEMENT 

 The Supreme Court ruled that the awaited advertisement would be legal and dismissed the action. The Court took the station that, without an indigenous violation, it couldn’t intrude with the Centre’s use of its authority under Composition 356 just because it accepted political and administrative policy and wisdom. It was observed that under Composition 356(5), the court is banned from querying the President’s satisfaction on any grounds until and until the operation of the provision is shown to be” grossly perverse and unreasonable” in order to constitute a clear violation of the law. 

 The proclamation is meant to serve as a protection against the breakdown of indigenous ministry in a state or to reverse the goods of one, the court held. It was further noted that the President’s pleasure under Composition 356 is a private bone

 and can not be estimated in light of any objective tests. The court cannot assess whether the data and circumstances are accurate or sufficient. According to the argument, since the government has the authority under Composition 356 to take either restorative or preventative action, it’s possible that the State Government in this case has lost the trust of the crowd. 

 The most notable part of the ruling is the assertion by nearly all the judges that, notwithstanding the extensive compass of presidential authority granted by Composition 356, a presidential proclamation might be queried if it was made on indecorous or illegal legal or indigenous grounds. It was noted that the President’s” satisfaction” is a prerequisite for the exercise of power under composition 356. It was decided that upholding popular norms could not be dismissed as a secondary defense for using the proclamation authority. As a result, the Home Minister’s letter was described as advising in nature rather than vicious. Also, regarding the question as to whether the term “state “in Composition 131(a) also included State government., it was held that a disagreement between the Central and State government involving a legal right was well within the powers of Composition 131.

REFERENCES

https://indiankanoon.org

https://www.lawdocs.in/listen-podcast/constitutional-case-law/state-of-rajasthan-v-uoi

https://www.legalflow.in/2022/06/state-of-rajasthan-v-union-of-india-air.html

This Article is written by Anish Kumar student of Presidency University, Bangalore; Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin