Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India Case [UPSC Notes]

Referring to the Supreme Court verdict on the Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India case, a five-judge Bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud enquired whether the Governor had the power to intervene by ordering a floor test when there is internal dissent within a party. This development is important with respect to the polity of the country and is hence a topic relevant for the IAS exam GS paper II.

Rameshwar Prasad Case Background

In February 2005, after the state elections, as no party or alliance could muster the required majority of 122 seats in the 243-member House, Bihar saw a hung assembly.

• Following several meetings with political parties, the Governor came to the conclusion that no party or coalition could attain a majority in the Assembly.
• On March 6, 2005: Governor wrote to the President of India, recommending a President’s rule in the state under Article 356, keeping the assembly in ‘suspended animation’ (this meant that the assembly could neither be dissolved nor could it conduct its business).
• The day after, two notifications were issued which declared President’s Rule in Bihar and transferred the President’s powers to the Governor, subject to his final control and superintendence.
• At the same time, a group of 17 independent MLAs and three smaller parties extended their support to the NDA group to form the government.
• Governor sent two reports to the President:
  • The first one was on April 27, 2005, which warned of attempts to manipulate the election process by offering incentives such as posts and money. The report recommended fresh elections to prevent distortion of democracy.
  • The second report was sent less than a month later on May 21, 2005, in which the Governor recommended the dissolution of the existing Assembly and reiterated the need for fresh elections, noting that LJP had sided with the JD(U).
• The Union Cabinet promptly forwarded the reports to the President for his assent, which is required for the dissolution of an Assembly and the conducting of fresh elections.
• Following the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly, different parties organised protests and strikes across the state.
• Rameshwar Prasad and three other MLAs from the dissolved House filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Presidential Proclamation of May 23, 2005. They requested that the dissolution of the Assembly be deemed “unconstitutional.”
• Despite the pending petitions before the SC, the Election Commission of India (ECI) announced fresh elections and declared the dates of new elections in the state of Bihar. This decision created a challenging situation as the Supreme Court had not yet made a ruling, and the election outcome could potentially complicate matters.

Rameshwar Prasad Case Supreme Court Verdict

On October 7, 2005, a Constitution Bench led by the then Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal gave a concise verdict.

• The court declared the President’s Proclamation of dissolving the state Assembly unconstitutional. However, the court decided not to reinstate the Assembly due to the upcoming elections.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor must be kept away from controversies such as disqualifying members of the Legislative Assembly. Therefore, the Constitution has provisions such as Article 192(2), which mandates the Governor to seek the opinion of the Election Commission and act accordingly. Similarly, Article 103(2) of the Constitution contains a similar provision for Members of Parliament.
• The court declared that even though the Governor was the primary actor, the Union Council of Ministers should have scrutinized the Governor’s report before hastily accepting it as true. The court stated that the Governor had misguided the Council of Ministers, resulting in the Council’s advice to the President and the issuance of the challenged Proclamation.
• The court deemed the Governor’s actions as insincere and claimed that the underlying motive was to prevent a political party from attempting to form the Government.

The Supreme Court has criticized the Governor’s behaviour in the Maharashtra case: 

Read more about the Maharashtra case in CNA dated Feb 24, 2023.

• The Supreme Court expressed worry about the actions of former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari, who exercised his authority to demand a floor test that led to the resignation of former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray. The state was facing a crisis due to a rebellion within the Shiv Sena party in June 2022, resulting in a majority of MLAs joining the faction led by current Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
• During the hearing, Justice D Y Chandrachud, who led a five-judge panel, asked whether the Governor had the power to intervene by ordering a floor test when there is internal dissent within a party.
• Justice P S Narasimha, a member of the panel, pointed out that the situation was different because, unlike the present scenario in Maharashtra, no government had been formed in Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India.
• The Chief Justice of India (CJI) drew a distinction between the current case and the ruling in Rameshwar Prasad after being prompted. He stated that the formation of a new government cannot be denied by the Governor or overruled by their subjective evaluation of the majority. According to the CJI, the current government has been lawfully established.

Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India Case:- Download PDF Here