1994 (3) TMI 380 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation and Applicability of Section 123 of the R.P. Act.
2. Scope of Judicial Review of Article 356.
3. Justiciability of Presidential Proclamation under Article 356.
4. Satisfaction of the President under Article 356.
5. Judicial Review of Presidential Proclamation.
6. Meaning of Approval in Clause (3) of Article 356.
7. Power of the President to Dissolve Legislative Assembly.
8. Effect of Failure to Comply with Directions Given by the Union.
9. Constitutionality of Presidential Proclamations in Specific Cases.

Summary:

1. Interpretation and Applicability of Section 123 of the R.P. Act:
The Court rejected the contention that sub-sections (3) and (3-A) of Section 123 of the R.P. Act are confined to cases where an individual candidate offends the religion of a rival candidate. The Court held that political parties cannot influence electoral prospects on grounds of religion, stating, "mingling of religion with politics is unconstitutional."

2. Scope of Judicial Review of Article 356:
The Court held that judicial review is different from an ordinary appeal and is concerned with the legality, propriety, or regularity of the procedure adopted by the tribunal or authority. Judicial review is a protection, not a weapon, and is applied to test the validity of decisions or orders on grounds of illegality, irrationality, unreasonableness, procedural impropriety, and proportionality.

3. Justiciability of Presidential Proclamation under Article 356:
The Court distinguished judicial review from justiciability, stating that the satisfaction of the President under Article 356 is subjective and based on material on record. The Court emphasized that the satisfaction of the President, being subjective, is not judicially discoverable by any manageable standards and is not justiciable.

4. Satisfaction of the President under Article 356:
The Court held that the satisfaction of the President under Article 356 must be based on relevant materials and cannot be equated with the discretion conferred upon an administrative agency. The Court reiterated that judicial review is not concerned with the merits of the decision but with the decision-making process.

5. Judicial Review of Presidential Proclamation:
The Court held that judicial review of a Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 is permissible if it is found to be mala fide or based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds. The Court emphasized that judicial review extends to examining the constitutionality of the Proclamation, but the court will not go into the correctness of the material or its adequacy.

6. Meaning of Approval in Clause (3) of Article 356:
The Court held that the approval of the Proclamation by both Houses of Parliament is a check on the power of the President and a safeguard against abuse. If both Houses disapprove or do not approve the Proclamation, it lapses at the end of two months, and the status quo ante revives.

7. Power of the President to Dissolve Legislative Assembly:
The Court held that the power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly is implicit in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) of Article 356 but should be exercised only after the Proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament. The dissolution of the Legislative Assembly is not a matter of course and should be resorted to only when necessary for achieving the purposes of the Proclamation.

8. Effect of Failure to Comply with Directions Given by the Union:
The Court held that Article 365 merely sets out one instance in which the President may hold that the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It does not exhaust the situations where the President may form the said satisfaction.

9. Constitutionality of Presidential Proclamations in Specific Cases:
- Karnataka: The Court held the Proclamation dated April 21, 1989, as unconstitutional but did not issue a writ due to subsequent elections.
- Meghalaya: The Court held the Proclamation dated October 11, 1991, as unconstitutional but did not issue a writ due to subsequent elections.
- Nagaland: The Court disposed of the appeal in terms of the opinion expressed on the meaning and purport of Article 74(2).
- Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Himachal Pradesh: The Court upheld the Proclamations dated January 15, 1993, as constitutional and allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

The Court emphasized that secularism is a basic feature of the Constitution and that any State Government pursuing unsecular policies renders itself amenable to action under Article 356.