Rameshwar Prasad & Ors vs Union of India, 2006 (The defection case)

♤ One of the questions of far reaching consequence that arose in this case was whether the dissolution of Assembly under Article 356 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 and defection(horse trading) are rampant. The court observed:

o That the scope of Judicial Review was broadened in the case of S.R. Bommai.

o It examined the merits of the Governor’s report and came to the conclusion that for fighting social evils like defection, Article 356 cannot be invoked. As the Governor’s report did not give any reason for the Presidential Proclamation except defection, so, the Proclamation was declared as unconstitutional.

o On whether Article 361 grants immunity* to the Governor the Court said that such immunity does not take away power of the Court to examine validity of the action, including on the ground of malafide.

The Supreme Court has thus created safeguards with regard to the utilization of Article 356. Several expert committees have lauded such safeguards to be adopted through constitutional amendments to ensure smooth Centre-State relations and effective Constitutional governance.

Emergence of coalition governments has restricted the imposition of the President’s rule in the states. The arbitrariness, which was associated with the one party rule at the Centre has gone and this has greatly brought down the number of cases of President’s rule.

* The Governor is not answerable to any Court for exercise and performance of powers and duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise of those powers and duties.