Constitutional Law Of India By J N Pandey Pdf To Jpg
A Key to Presidential Proclamation under Article 356 ofConstitution of IndiaDr. Baba Saheb Ambedkar referred Article 356 of the Constitution ofIndia as a dead letter of the Constitution but sadly with the help ofArticle 356 many State Governments in India are buried from their power.In the constituent assembly debate it was suggested that Article 356 isliable to be abused for political purpose. In reply to this Dr. Ambedkarsaid that such articles will never be called into operation and theywould remain a dead letter. If at all they are brought into operation, Ihope the President, who is endowed with these powers, will take properprecautions before actually suspending the administration of theprovinces.
Constitutional Law of India book. Read 3 reviews from the world's largest community for readers.
I hope the first thing he will do would be to issue a merewarning to a province that has erred, that things were not happening inthe way in which they were intended to happen in the Constitution. If thatwarning fails, the second thing for him to do will be to order an electionallowing the people of the province to settle matters by themselves. It isonly when these two remedies fail that he would resort to thisarticle.1But this was never the case the Presidents power to issue the proclamationunder Article 356 has been abused most of the time. So far the power underthe provision has been used on more than 90 occasions and in almost allcases against governments run by political parties in opposition.
Union of India a Land Mark Judgement in whichSupreme Court had discussed at length the provision of Article 356 andvarious issues associated with the said provisions.Article 356 Article 356 provides for the action to be taken by the President where heis satisfied that a situation has arisen in which the government of aState cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of theConstitution by making a proclamation in that behalf.2The FactsS.R. Union of India came before the bench of 9 judges under thefollowing circumstances:KarnatakaThe facts were that the Janata Party being the majority party in the StateLegislature had formed Government under the leadership of Shri S.R. Bommai.In September 1988, the Janata Party and Lok Dal merged into a new partycalled Janata Dal. The Ministry was expanded with addition of 13 members.Within two days thereafter, one Shri K.R. Molakery, a legislator of JanataDal defected from the party. He presented a letter to the Governor alongwith 19 letters, allegedly signed by legislators supporting the Ministry,withdrawing their support to the Ministry.
As a result on 19.4.1989, theGovernor sent a report to the President stating therein there weredissensions and defections in the ruling party. In support of his case, hereferred to the 19 letters received by him.
Constitutional Law Of India By J N Pandey Pdf To Jpg Online
He further stated that in viewof the withdrawal of the support by the said legislators, the chiefMinister, Shri Bommai did not command a majority in the Assembly and,hence, it was inappropriate under the Constitution, to have the Stateadministered by an Executive consisting of Council of Ministers which didnot command the majority in the House. He, therefore, recommended to thePresident that he should exercise power under Article 3561.However onthe next day seven out of the nineteen legislators who had allegedlywritten the said letters to the Governor sent letters to him complainingthat their signatures were obtained on the earlier letters bymisrepresentation and affirmed their support to the Ministry.
J&n Tanning
The ChiefMinister and his Law Minister met the Governor the same day and informedhim about the decision to summon the Assembly Session. The Chief Ministeralso offered to prove has majority on the floor of the House even byproponing the Assembly Session, if needed. To the same effect, he sent atelex message to the President. The Governor however sent yet anotherreport to the President on the same day i.e., 20-4-1989, and stated thatthe Chief Minister had lost the confidence of the majority in the Houseand repeated his earlier request for action under Article 3561.
On thatvery day, the President issued the Proclamation in question with therecitals already referred to above. The Proclamation was, thereafterapproved by the Parliament as required by Article 3563.3A writ petition was filed on 26th April 1989 challenging the validity ofthe proclamation. A special bench of 3 judges of Karnataka High Courtdismissed the writ petition.MeghalayaOn 11th October 1991 the president issued a proclamation under Article356(1) dismissing the government of Meghalaya and dissolving thelegislative assembly. The Proclamation stated that the President wassatisfied on the basis of the report from the Governor and otherinformation received by him that the situation had arisen in which theGovernment of the State could not be carried on in accordance with theprovisions of the Constitution. The Government was dismissed and theAssembly was dissolved accordingly.NagalandOn 7th August 1988, the president issued the proclamation on the basis ofGovernor Report and dismissed the Government of Nagaland thus dissolvingthe Legislative assembly.
Shri Vamuzo, leader of opposition party,challenged the validity of Proclamation in Gauhati High Court. A DivisionBench comprising the Chief Justice and Hansaria, J. Heard the petition.The Bench differed on the effect and operation of Article 742 and hencethe matter was referred to the third Judge. But before the third learnedjudge could hear the matter, the Union of India moved this Court for grantof special leave which was granted and the proceedings in the High Courtwere stayed.Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal PradeshThe Vishva Hindu Parishad VHP, RSS and Bajrang Dal demolished thestructure of Babri Masjid in Ayodhya claiming it to be Ram Janma Bhumi. Itshould be noted that that VHP, RSS and Bajrang Dal are wings of the BJP,which at the time of demolition was the ruling party in Uttar Pradesh. Onaccount of this demolition communal riots spread out in the entirecountry. Thereafter the Hon'ble Supreme Court banned RSS, VHP and BajrangDal in the country.However the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthanfailed to implement this ban.
As a result the condition became worst inthe above mentioned states. There was total failure of Law and order inthese states. As a result on 15th December 1992, the president issued theproclamation under Article 356 dismissing the State Governments anddissolving the Legislative Assemblies Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh andRajasthan. The validity of these proclamations was challenged by the Writsin the appropriate High Courts.
High Court allowed the petition,but writ petition relating to Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh werewithdrawn to Supreme Court.All the above said petition contained similar question of law andtherefore they were heard conjointly by the by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.The arguments in the S.R. Bommai's case commenced in the first week ofOctober 1993 and were concluded in the last week of December 1993. 4The ContentionsS.