1977 (6) TMI 99 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the Home Minister's letter and its constitutional validity.
2. Grounds for invoking Article 356 of the Constitution.
3. Justiciability of the President's satisfaction under Article 356.
4. Maintainability of suits under Article 131.
5. Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 32.
6. Scope of judicial review over the President's proclamation under Article 356.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Nature of the Home Minister's Letter and its Constitutional Validity:
The plaintiffs argued that the Home Minister's letter amounted to a "directive" to the Chief Ministers to dissolve the State Assemblies, which was unconstitutional. The Court, however, found that the letter was merely an advice or suggestion, not a binding directive. It was emphasized that the Home Minister's letter did not contain any mandatory language compelling the Chief Ministers to act. The Court concluded that the letter was an act of political courtesy and did not interfere with the Chief Ministers' discretion.

2. Grounds for Invoking Article 356 of the Constitution:
The plaintiffs contended that the grounds mentioned in the Home Minister's letter were insufficient for invoking Article 356, which allows the President to assume control over a State if its government cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution. The Court noted that the grounds included the unprecedented political situation arising from the Congress party's defeat in the Lok Sabha elections and the resultant climate of uncertainty and threats to law and order. The Court held that these grounds were relevant and had a reasonable nexus with the purpose of Article 356. It was emphasized that the President's satisfaction under Article 356 is subjective and based on political judgment, which is not justiciable.

3. Justiciability of the President's Satisfaction under Article 356:
The Court held that the President's satisfaction under Article 356 is a subjective matter and not open to judicial review, except on the grounds of mala fides or if it is based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant grounds. The Court referred to previous judgments, including those of the Privy Council and the Federal Court, which established that the necessity of immediate action and the existence of an emergency are matters for the executive to decide. The Court emphasized that it cannot enter the political arena or substitute its judgment for that of the executive.

4. Maintainability of Suits under Article 131:
The Court examined whether the suits filed by the States were maintainable under Article 131, which confers original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in disputes between the Government of India and one or more States. The Court held that the dispute must involve a legal right of the State, not merely a political issue. It was concluded that the suits did not involve any legal right of the States as such, but rather concerned the composition of State Governments and Legislatures. Therefore, the suits were not maintainable under Article 131.

5. Maintainability of Writ Petitions under Article 32:
The writ petitioners, who were members of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, claimed that the threatened dissolution of the Assembly would deprive them of their right to receive salaries, which they argued was a violation of their fundamental right to property. The Court held that the impact on the petitioners' right to receive salaries was indirect and remote, not a direct invasion of a fundamental right. Therefore, the writ petitions were not maintainable under Article 32.

6. Scope of Judicial Review over the President's Proclamation under Article 356:
The Court reiterated that the President's proclamation under Article 356 is subject to parliamentary control and must be approved by both Houses of Parliament within two months. However, the Court held that the proclamation has immediate force and effect upon issuance and continues to operate for two months unless revoked or disapproved by Parliament. The Court emphasized that judicial review is limited to examining whether the proclamation is mala fide or based on extraneous and irrelevant grounds, but the sufficiency of the grounds is not justiciable.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the suits and writ petitions, holding that the Home Minister's letter was not a binding directive, the grounds for invoking Article 356 were relevant, the President's satisfaction under Article 356 was not justiciable, the suits were not maintainable under Article 131, the writ petitions were not maintainable under Article 32, and the scope of judicial review over the President's proclamation under Article 356 was limited. The Court emphasized the importance of political wisdom and executive discretion in matters involving Article 356.