9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Article 75(3) of the Constitution regarding the continuity of the Council of Ministers and Prime Minister after the dissolution of the House of People. Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court of India involved the interpretation of Article 75(3) of the Constitution regarding the continuity of the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister after the dissolution of the House of People. The appellant contended that upon dissolution of the House of People, the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, should resign or be dismissed by the President to maintain constitutional authority. The appellant argued that the President should govern with the aid of services in such circumstances. The Court examined the mandatory nature of Article 74(1), emphasizing the requirement for a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President. The Court held that the President cannot exercise executive power without the Council of Ministers, as per Article 74(1), and harmonized this with Article 75(3, which establishes a "Responsible Government" requiring the confidence of the House of People. The judgment clarified that Article 75(3) applies when the House of People is not dissolved or prorogued, ensuring the functioning of the Council of Ministers with the House's confidence. The Court further analyzed relevant constitutional articles, including Article 77(3) on the allocation of business among Ministers and Article 78 outlining the Prime Minister's duties. The judgment emphasized the importance of maintaining the constitutional structure and conventions of a parliamentary system of government. The Court rejected the appellant's argument that the Council of Ministers should resign upon the dissolution of the House of People, affirming that the President appoints the Prime Minister and Ministers, who hold office at the President's pleasure. The judgment highlighted the significance of interpreting the Constitution in line with its provisions and conventions, ensuring the proper functioning of the executive branch under the parliamentary system. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the continuity of the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister after the dissolution of the House of People. The Court clarified that Article 75(3) operates when the House of People is not dissolved or prorogued, maintaining the principles of a "Responsible Government" and the necessity for the Council of Ministers to enjoy the House's confidence. The judgment emphasized the constitutional framework and conventions of a parliamentary system, ensuring the proper functioning of the executive branch in accordance with the Constitution.
|
