Case: State of Rajasthan and Others Etc Vs. Union of India and others

does not appertain to legal rights of the States concerned to satisfy the requirement of Article 131 of the Constitution. These suits are, therefore, not maintainable in law and on this ground they are liable to be dismissed. 79. With regard to the Writ Petitions I had the opportunity to go through the judgments of my brothers Bhagwati and Gupta and I entirely agree with their reasoning and conclusion. I am clearly of opinion that there is no violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution as a consequence of the threatened dissolution of the Legislative Assembly. the Writ Petitions are, therefore, not maintainable and are liable for rejection. 80. Since, however, the question of mala fides of the proposed action of the Home Minister was argued at length with a pointed focus on the ensuing Presidential, election, I should touch on the point. 81. It is submitted that these grounds, ex facie, are completely irrelevant and extraneous and even mala fide. Mr. Niren De referred to the decision of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Benoari Lal Sarma and Others(72 I.A. 57, 64.) and read to us the following passage:It is to be observed that the section (72 of Government of India Act, 1935) does not require the Governor-General to state that there is an emergency, or what the emergency is either in the text of the ordinance o r at all, and assuming that he acts bona fide and in accordance with his statutory powers, it cannot rest with the courts to challenge his review that the emergency exists. 82. Relying on the above passage, Mr. De submits that this Court is entitled to examine whether the direction is mala fide or not. 83. The Additional Solicitor General has drawn our attention to Bhagat Singh and Others v. The King-Emperor(58 I.A. 169, 172.) which is a decision of the Privy Council followed in Benoari Lai Sarmas case (supra) He read to us the following passage A state of emergency is something that does not permit of any exact definition. If connotes a state of matters calling for drastic action, which is to be judged as such by some one. It is more than obvious that some one must be the Governor-General, and he alone. Any other view would render utterly inept the whole provision. Emergency demands immediate action, and that action is prescribed to be taken by the Governor- General. It is he alone who can promulgate the Ordnance. 84. The President in our Constitution is a constitution al head and is bound to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers (Article 74). This was the position even before the amendment of Article 74(1) of the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment (See Shamsher Singh &Anr. v. State of Pun jab ([1975] 1 S.C.R. 814.). The position has been made absolutely explicit by the amendment of Article 74(1) by the Constitution 42nd Amendment which says there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President who shall, in the exercise of his functions, act in accordance with such advise. What was judicially interpreted even under the unamended Article 74(1) has now been given parliamentary recognition by the Constitution Amendment. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the decision under Article 356 of the Constitution which is made by the President is a decision of the Council of Ministers. Because certain reasons ate given in the letter of the Home Minister, it cannot be said that those will, be the only grounds which will weigh with the Council of Ministers when they finally take a decision when the advise has been rejected by the Chief Ministers. There are so many imponderables that may intervene between the time of the letter and the actual advice of the Council of Ministers to the President. There may be further developments or apprehension of developments which the Government may have to take not of and finally when the Council of Ministers decides and advises the President to issue a proclamation under Article 356, the Court will be barred from enquiring into the advice that was tendered by the Cabinet to the President (Article 74(2). Then again under Article 356(5), the satisfaction of the President in issuing the proclamation under Article 356(1) shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned in any court on, any ground. In the view I have taken, I am not required to consider in the matters be fore us whether Article 356(5) of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution or not. Even the Additional Solicitor General based his arguments on the very terms of Article 356(1) de hors Article 356(5) relying upon Bhagat Singhs case (supra) that the subjective satisfaction of the President is not justiciable. It is inview of this stand of the Union that Mr. De drew our attention to Benoari Lai Sarmas case (supra ) where the Privy Council seems to have indicated that the question of mala fides could be gone in to by the court. Mr. De submits that a mala fide order under Article 356 will be no order in the eye of law. 85. I am not prepared to say that this Court, which is the last recourse for the oppressed and the bewildered, will, for good, refuse to consider when there may be sufficient materials to establish that a proclamation under Article 356(1) is tainted with mala fides. I would, however, hasten to add that the grounds given in the Home Ministers letter cannot be any strength of imagination be held to be mala fide or extraneous or irrelevant. These ground will have reasonable nexus with the subject of a proclamation under Articl e 356(1) of the Constitution. The matter would have been entirely different if there were no proposal, pari passu, for an appeal to the electorate by holding elections to these Assemblies. 86.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]first ground of objection on behalf of the Union is confined to the suits. But, the remaining three grounds of objection are common to the suits as well as the Writ PetitionsHence it cannot be said that a mere attempt to get more political power for a party, as a means of pursuing the programme of that party, as, opposed to that of other parties, is constitutionally prohibited or per se illegal. There may be moral or even political objections to, such courses in certain circumstances. It may be urged that States should be permitted to function undisturbed by any directions or advise by the Union Government despite their differences with it on matters of socioeconomic or political policy on complexion. Rights were asserted, on behalf of State legislators, as though they were legal rights to continue. as legislators untill the expiry of the; constitutionally fixed spans of lives of their legislatures, barring cases of earlier dissolution. We are only concerned here with legal rights to dissolve and legal obstacles to such dissolutionWe, cannot anticipate decisions or interdict possible actions in situations which may or may not arise due to all kinds of factors-economic, social, moral and political.If the Union Government thinks that the circumstances of the situation demand that the, State Governments must seek a fresh mandate to justify their moral rights in the eyes of the people to continue to exercise power in the interests of their electors, or else the discontent of the masses may have its repercussion not only on the law and order situation but will also affect legal responsibilities or duties which the Union Government has towards a particular State o r towards Indian citizens in general, all of whom live in some State or other, can we say that resort to Article 356 of the Constitution is not called for ? I think that it is impossible to substitute our judgment for that of the Union Government on such a matterIt is futile to urge that article 172(1) of the Constitution, as amended, lays down an unalterable duration of six years for a legislative assembly from its first meeting because this article clearly contains the exception unless sooner dissolved. As observed above, it is no where laid down either in the Constitution or any law dealing with holding of elections to a legislative assembly what circumstances will justify its dissolution sooner than the duration it would otherwise enjoy.It was argued that the only authority empowered to dissolve a legislative assembly under Artic le 174 (2) (b) of the Constitution was the Governor of a State who had to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers in the State. It was submitted that the Union Government could not either advise, or in the form of advice, direct the State Government to ask the Governor to dissolve the State Assembly under any circumstances. Apparently, the principle of construction relied upon was a much used and easily misused principle; expressio unius est exclusio alterius. We do not think that such a principle could help the plaintiffs before us at all in as much as article 356 of the Constitution very clearly provides for the assumption by the President to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor. Article 174(2) (b) of the Constitution expressly vests the power of dissolving the legislative assembly in the Governor even if that had to be on the advice of the Council of Ministers in the State, but the power to give such advice would automatically, be taken over by the Union Government for the purposes of dissolution of the State Assembly when the President assumes governmental powers by a proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution. A dissolution by the President after the proclamation would be as good as a dissolution by the Governor of a State whose powers; are taken overThe question was then mooted whether that was being done under article 356 of the Constitution did not amount to taking over by the President, acting on the advice of the Union Council of Ministers, of powers for dissolving the State Assemblies upon facts and circumstances which, in the judgment of the Union Council of Ministers, constituted sufficient grounds for a dissolution of the State Assembly, whereas the Constitution provides that this had to be done by the State Government on the advice of the Council of Ministers in a State. Such an argument is really an argument in a circle. It assumes that the taking over by the President, advised by the Union Council of Ministers, of th e functions of the Governor, advised by the State Council of Ministers, on this matter, was outside the purview of Article 356(1). A situation in which, according to the view of the Union Government, the State Council of Ministers had wrongly failed to advise the State Governor to dissolve the State Legislative Assembly, so that action under Article 3 5 6 ( 1 ) has to be taken, would be exceptional in which articles governing the exercise of functions normally are suspended an d do not operate at all. If article 356(1) of the Constitution or any other article contained any provision which amounted to a prohibition against assumption of powers of dissolution of State Assemblies by the President of India, it woul d be a different matter, but that, as we have repeatedly pointed out, is not the position here. Indeed, such a provision, had it been there, would have completely nullified article 356(1). Obviously, a proclamation under Article 356(1) to be effective must suspend the operation of article 174. It is evident that one of the reasons, perhaps the main reason for bringing about this exceptional situation in the cases now before us, is the refusal of the State Chief Ministers to comply with t he advice sent to them which they equate with a direction given in exercise of the executive powers of the Union GovernmentHaving considered the cases set out in the plaints and the petition before us, from every conceivable angle, I am unable to find a cause of action for the grant of any injunction or a writ or order in the nature of a Mandamus against any of the Defendants Opposite partiesIt seems to me impossible to hold that the suits filed by the six States do not raise a dispute involving a question depending upon the existence or extent of a legal right. The plaintiffs, by their suits, directly and specifically question the constitutional right and authority of the Union Government to issue a directive to the State Governments commending that the Chief Ministers should tender a certain advice to their Governors. The plaintiffs also question the constitutional right of the Union Government to dissolve the State Assemblies on the grounds mentioned in the Home Ministers letter to the Chief Ministers. Thus a legal, not a political, issue arising out of the existence and extent of a legal right squarely arises and the suits cannot be thrown out as falling outside the purview of art. 131.The error of the preliminary objection lies i n the assumption that it is necessary for attracting art. 131 that the plaintiff must assert a legal right in itself. That article contains no such restriction and it is sufficient in order that its provisions may apply that the plaintiff questions the legal or constitutional right asserted by the defendant, be it the Government of India or any other State. Such a challenge brings the suit within the terms of art. 131 for, the question for the decision of the Court is not whether this o r that particular legislative Assembly is entitled to continue in office but whether the Government of India, which asserts the constitutional right to dissolve the Assembly on the grounds alleged, possesses any such rightI find it difficult t o accept that the State as a polity is not entitled to raise a dispute of this nature. In a federation, whether classical or quasi-classical, the States are vitally interested in the definition of the powers of the Federal Government on one hand and their own on the other. A dispute bearing upon the delineation of those powers is precisely the one in which the federating States, no less than the Federal Government itself, are interested. The States, therefore, have the locus and the interest to contest and seek an adjudication of the claim set up by the Union Government. The bond of constitutional obligation between the Government of India and the States sustains that locusTurning now to the question whether the present suits seek to enforce any legal right of theit. is necessary to have a look at a few provisions of the Constitution. Save for the purpose of Part III State is not defined in the Constitution, but by reason of Article 367, clause (1), it must be given the same meaning which it has under the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 3, clause (56) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 defines State, inter alia, to mean a St ate specified in the first Schedule to the Constitution. The States of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa are States specified in the First Schedule and hence they are States within the meaning of t he Constitution. Article 1, clause (1) declares that India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States and a State is consequently a constituent part of the Union of India. Part VI of the Constitution contains provisions regarding the States. Article 153 says that there shall be a Governor for each State and under Article 154 the executive power of the State is vested in the Governor and has to be, exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. Article 163 provides for a Council of Ministers with a Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions except in respect of. a limited area where he is by or under the Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion. There is no express provision in the Constitution requiring the Governor to act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers as there is in the newly amended Article 74, clause (1) in regard to the President, but it is now well settled as a result of the decision of this Court in Shamsher Singh. v. State of Punjab([1975] S.C.R. 814.) that except in the narrow minimal area covered by Articles 163 (2), 371A (1) (b) and (d), 371A(2) (b) and (f) and sixth Schedule, Para 9(2), the Governor also is bound to act according to the advice of the Council of Ministers. This is broadly the scheme of the provisions in regard to the exercise of the executive power of the States. The legislative power of the State is exercisable by the Legislature under Article 168 and according to that Article, the Legislature of the State is to consist of the Governor and the Legislative Assembly, together with the Legislative Council in some of the States. Article 172 provides that every Legislative Assembly of a State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for six years from the date appointed for its first meeting. Originally the term was five years, but it was extended to six years by the FortySecond Constitution Amendment Act. Article 213 deals with a situation where the Legislature is not in session and provides that in such a case the Governor may legislate by promulgating ordinances when he is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action. It will thus be seen that under the provisions of the Constitution the executive power of th e State is exercisable by the Governor aided and advised by a Council of Ministers and the Legislative power, by the Legislature of the State and in an emergent situation when the Legislature is not in session, by the Governor.Now, in order to determine whose legal right would be violated by the threatened action under Article 356, clause (1), we must proceed on the assumption that such action, when taken, would be constitutionally invalid, because if it were valid, there would be no cause for complaint. The question is: who would have cause of action if unconstitutional action were taken under Article 356, clause (1) ? If the executive power of the State vested in the Governor were taken away by the President or the legislative power of the State were exercisable not by the Legislature of the State or the Governor, but by or under the authority of Parliament or the Legislature of the State wered all these being actions which can be taken under Article 356, clauseo would be aggrieved ? Can the State say that its legal right is infringed ? We believe it can. Is it not the right of the State under the Constitution that its executive power shall be exercisable by the Governor except when any functions of the State Government or any powers of the Governor are assumed by the President by valid exercise of power under Article 356, clause (1) ? Is it not competent to the State to insist that it shall continue to have its legislature for making its laws, until its term expires or it is validly dissolved? Is it not a constitutional right of the State that its laws shall be made by its legislature, unless the President declares, in exercise of the power under Article 356, clause (1), that the powers of the legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament ? These rights of the State under the Constitution. would certainly be affected by invalid exercise of power under Article 356, clause (1)This contention is not well founded and cannot be sustained.It is true that there is a distinction between State and State Government and this distinction is also evident from the language of Article 131 and, therefore, what has to be seen for the purpose of determining the applicability of that Article is whether any legal right of the State, as distinct from the State Government, is infringed. Now, undoubtedly, a State has no legal right to insist that it shall have a particular Council of Ministers or particular persons as members of the Legislative Assembly. But a State has certainly a right under the Constitution to say that its executive and legislative powers shall be exercisable in the manner provided in the Constitution. If a legal right of a State can be said to have been infringed when its Legislative Assembly is abolished, it is difficult to see how any other conclusion can follow when the Legislative Assembly is not abolished but suspended or dissolved. In the former case, the State is unconstitutionally deprived of its legislative organ and its legislative power is given over to another authority: in the letter, the constitutionally appointed organ remains but it is made ineffectual for a period during which t he legislative power is unconstitutionally vested in another authority. We fail to see any difference in the two situations so far as the State is concerned. The position is the same whether the constitutionally appointed organ for exercise of legislative power is amputated or paralysed. If one affects the legal right of the State, equally the other does. It may be that if a Legislative Assembly is suspended or dissolved and the legislative power of the State become, , , exercisable by or under the authority of Parliament by reason of Presidential action under Article 356, clause (1), the individual rights (A the members of the Legislative Assembly may be affected, but that does not mean that the legal right of the State would also not thereby be infringed. Unconstitutional exercise of power by the President under Article 356, clause (1) may injuriously affect rights of several persons. It may infringe not only the individual rights of the members of the Legislative Assembly, but also the constitutional right of the State to insist that the federal basis of the political structure set up by the constitution shall not be violated by an unconstitutional assault under Article 356, clause (1), we are, therefore, of the view, that the present suits seek to enforce a legal right of the States arising under the Constitution and the suits cannot be thrown out in limine as being outside the scope and ambit of Article 131. We must proceed, to consider the suits one important and serious question which arises for consideration on merits is as to what is the scope and ambit of the power under Article 356, clause (1). Can the President in exercise of this power dissolve a State Legislature, and if so, are there any limitations on this power, To answer this question, it is necessary to examine the scheme and language of different clauses of Article 3, 56 and the object and purpose for which it has been enacted. Article 3 56 occurs in Part XVIII which contains a fasciculus of articles from Article 352 to 360 dealing with emergency provisions. One of us (Bhagwati, J.) has occasion to point out in Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. S. S. Shukla([1976] Supp. S.C.R. 172.) that there are three types of emergency which may cause crisis in the life of a nation. The first is where the security of the country is threatened by war or external aggression: the second arises on account of threat or presence of internal disturbance calculated to disrupt the life of the country and jeopardize the existence of constitutional Government and the third is occasioned when there is break down or potential break down of the economy threatening the financial stability or credit of the country. The first two types of emergency are dealt with in Article 352, while the third type is dealt with in Article 360. Article 352, clause (1) provides that if the President is satisfied that a grave emergency exists whereby the security of India or of any part of its territory is threatened, whether by war or external aggression or internal disturbance, be may, by proclamation, make a declaration to that effect and clause (2) of that Article requires that such Proclamation shall be laid before each House of Parliament and it shall cease to operate at the expiration of two months unless before the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament . The constitutional implications of a declaration of emergency under Article 352, clause (1) are vast and they are provided in Articles 250, 353, 354, 358 and 359. The emergency being an exceptional situation, arising out of a, national crisis, certain wide and sweepinghave been conferred on the Central Government and Parliament with a view to combat the situation and restore normal conditions. One such power is that given by Article 250 which provides that while a Proclamation o f Emergency is in operation, Parliament shall have the power to make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List. The effect of this provision is that the federal structure based on separation of powers is put out of action for the time being. Another power of a similar kind is that conferred by Article 353 which says that during the time that Proclamation of Emergency is in force. the executive power of the Union shall extend to the giving of direction to any State as to the manner in which the executive power thereof is to be exercised. This provision also derogates from the federal principle which forms the basis of the Constitution. This departure from the constitutional principle of federalism is permitted by the Constitution because of the extraordinary situation arising out of threat to the continued existence of constitutional democratic Government. Then we come to Article, 355 which enjoins a duty on the Union to protect every State against external aggression and internal disturbance and to ensure that the government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provision s of the Constitution. Article 356 contains provisions for dealing with another kind of emergent situation arising from failure of constitutional machinery in the StatesIt is an emergency power and it has necessarily to be vested in the Central Government because quick and immediate action may be necessary to avert or combat constitutional break down in the State and moreover a constitutional obligation is laid on the Union to ensure, that the, Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Any delay in taking action may in conceiveable cases frustrate the very object and purpose of conferment of this power on the President. Promptness may be the essence of effectiveness in such cases and public interest may suffer on account of tardiness in action. Hence the power conferred on the President under Article 356, clause (1) is not limited by the condition that it cannot be exercised when either or boths of Parliament are in session. Then again, clause (3) of Article 356 provides that a proclamation issued under clause (1) shall cease to operate at the expiration of two months, unless be fore the expiration of that period it has been approved by resolutions of both Houses of Parliament. This means that it shall continue to operate for a period of two months, unless sooner revoked. It is only for the purpose of its extension beyond two months that the approval of both Houses of Parliament is required by clause (3) of Article 356. If no such approval is forthcoming the proclamation cannot continue after the expiration of two months, but until then it certainly continue s and has full force and effect. It may be noted that clause (3) of Article 356 does not say that the proclamation shall be operative only on approval by both Houses of Parliament, nor does it provide that it shall cease to operate even before the expiry of two months, if disapproved by either House of Parliament, it is interesting to compare the language of Clause (3) of Article 356 with that of Article, 123. clause (2) in this connection, Article 123, clause (1) confers power on t he President to promulgate an ordinance during recess of Parliament when be is satisfied that circumstances exist which render it necessary for him to take immediate action and clause (2) of that Article provides that such ordinance shall cease to operate at the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament, or if before the expiration of that period resolutions disapproving it are passed by both Houses, upon the passing of the second of those resolutions. The ordinance would continue to operate until the expiration of six weeks from the reassembly of Parliament unless before that date is disapproved by both Houses of Parliament. But when we come to clause (3) of Article 356, we find that a different scheme in regard to the life of a proclamation issued under clause (1) is adopted in that clause. Clause (3) of Article 356 does not confer power, on the two Houses of Parliament to put an end to the proclamation by disapproval before the expiration of the Period of two months and it is only if the life of the proclamation is to he extended beyond the period of two months that is required to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, it is, therefore, clear that disapproval by the either House of the Parliament before the expiration of two months has no constitutional relevance to the life of the Proclamation and the proclamation would continue in force for a period of two months , despite such disapproval.It would be clear from this discussion that when a proclamation is validly issued by the President under Article 356, clause (1), it has immediate force and effect, the moment it is issued and where, by the proclamation, the President has assumed to himself the powers of the Governor under sub-clause (a), he is entitled to exercise those powers as fully and effectually as the Governor, during the period of two months when the Proclamation is in operation. There is no limitation imposed by any Article of the Constitution that these powers , of the Governor can be exercised by the President only when they have no irreversible consequence and where they have such consequence, they cannot be exercised until the proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament. Whilst the proclamation is in force during the period of two months, the, President can exercise all the powers of the Governor assumed by him and the Court cannot read any limitation which would have the effect of cutting down the width and amplitude of such powers by confining their exercise only to those cases where no irretrievable consequence would ensure which would be beyond repair. When any power of the Governor is assumed by the President under the Proclamation, the President can, during the two months when the proclamation is in force, do, whatever the Governor could in exercise of such power, and it would be immaterial whether the consequence o f exercise of such power is final and irrevocable or not. To hold otherwise would be, to refuse to give full effect to the proclamation which as pointed out above, continues to operate with full force and vigour during the period of two months. It would be rewriting Article 356 and making approval of both Houses of Parliament a condition precedent to the coming into force of the proclamation so far as the particular power is concerned. Now one of the powers of the Governor which can be assumed by the President under the proclamation is the power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly , of the State under Art. 174(2) (b) and, therefore, the President also can dissolve the Legislative Assembly during the time that the proclamation is in force. It is difficult to see bow the exercise of this power by the President can be made conditional on the approval of the proclamation by the two Houses of Parliament. If the proclamation has full force and effect during the period of two months even without approval by the two Houses of Parliament, the President certainly can exercise the power of the Governor to dissolve the Legislative Assembly of the State without waiting for the approval of the proclamation by both Houses of Parliament. It is true that once the Legislative Assembly is dissolved by the President in exercise of the power assumed by him under the proclamation, it would be impossible to restore the status quo ante if the proclamation is not approved by both Houses of Parliament, but that is the inevitable consequence flowing from the exercise, of the power which the President undoubtedly Possesses during the time that the Proclamation is in force. This is clearly a necessary power because there may conceivably be cases where the exercise of the power of dissolution of the Legislative Assembly may become imperative in order to remedy the situation arising on account of break down of the constitutional machinery in the State and failure to exercise this power promptly may frustrate the basic object and purpose of a proclamation.......... under Article 356, clause (1). It is, therefore, not possible to accede to the argument of the petitioners, in the writ petitions that during the period of two months before approval of the proclamation by the two Houses of Parliament, no irreversible action, such as dissolution of the Legislative assembly of the State, can be taken by the President. The power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly of the State cannot also be denied to the President on the ground that the proclamation may not be approved by one or the other House of Parliament. In the first place, the existence of a constitutional power or the validity of its exercise cannot be determined by reference to a possible contingency. The Court cannot enter the realm of conjecture and surmise and speculate as to what would be the position at the expiration of two months whether the proclamation will be approved by both Houses of Parliament or not. Secondly, it is entirely immaterial whether or not the proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament, because even if it is not so approved, it would continue to be in full force, and effect for a period of two months, unless sooner revoked. It is also difficult to appreciate how Article 357, clause (1), sub clause (c) can possibly assist the argument of the petitioners. Thate provides that when the House of the People is not in session, the President can authorise expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund of the State pending receipt of sanction of such expenditure by the Parliament and consequently, it is possible that if Parliament does not sanction such expenditure, serious difficulty might arise. But that is merely a theoretical possibility which in practical reality of politics would hardly arise and it need not deflect us from placing on the language of Article 356 the only correct interpretation which its language bears. When the President issues a proclamation on the advice of the Central Government, it stands t o reason that the House of the People in which the Central Government enjoys majority would sanction expenditure out of the Consolidated Fund of the State. We are, therefore, of the view that even during the period of two months, without the approval of the proclamation by, both Houses of Parliament, the President can dissolve the Legislative Assembly of the State in exercise of the power of the Governor under Article 174(2) (b) assumed by him under the proclamation. This is t he correct constitutional interpretation of clause (1) and (3) of Article 356 guided by the language of these clauses and the context and setting in which they occur. It might appear at first blush that this constitutional interpretation would completely eliminate the Parliamentary central over the issue of proclamation and exercise of powers under it and the Central Government would be free to take over the administration of the State and paralyse or even dissolve the Legislative Assembly, even if it should appear that one or the other House of Parliament might not approve it. But this apprehension need not cause any undue anxiety, for it is based primarily on the possibility of abuse of the Power conferred under Article 356, clause (1). It must be remembered that merely because power may sometime be abused, it is no ground for denying the existence of the power. The wisdom of man has not yet been able to conceive of a government with power sufficient to answer all its legitimate needs and at the same time incapable of mischief. In the last analysis, a great deal must depend on the wisdom and honesty, integrity and character of those who are in charge of administration and the existence of enlighten ed and alert public opinion. Moreover, it is apparent that a piquant situation of considerable complexity and extra-ordinary consequences may arise if either House of Parliament disapproves of the proclamation and, therefore, political and pragmatic wisdom of the highest order and circumspection of utmost anxiety would necessarily inform the Central Government before exercising the weighty power conferred by Article 356, clause (1). Further more, it must be remembered that the principle of cabinet responsibility to Parliament lies at the core of our democratic structure of Government and the Central Government is accountable for all its actions to Parliament which consists of elected representatives of the people and if any action is taken by the Central Government which is improper or unjustified by moral, ethical or political norms, Parliament would certainly be there to bring them to book. The Political control exercised by Parliament would always be a salutary check against improper exercise of power or its misuse or abuse by the executive. And lastly the powers conferred on the President, that is, the Central Government, being a limited power, its exercise would, within the narrow minimal area, which we shall indicate later, be subject to judicial review ability. These are the safeguards which must alley the apprehension that the Central Government may act want only or capriciously in issuing a proclamation under Article 356, clause (1) by passing and ignoring the two Houses oft takes us to the next question whether any injunction can be granted against the Union of India restraining it from issuing a proclamation and dissolving the Legislative Assemblies of the States under Art. 356, cl. (1), for that is the primary relief claimed by the States in the suits. This question has been argued on a demurrer as if the averments made in the plaints were. We shall presently consider this question, but before that, we may dispose of a short point in regard to what has been described as a directive by Shri Charan Singh Home Minister to the Central Government, to the Chief Ministers of th e States concerned in the, suits (hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff States). Each of the plaintiff states has sought a declaration that the directive of Shri Charan Singh is Unconstitutional, illegal and ultra vires the Constitution an d an injunction restraining the Union of India from giving effect to this directive. We fail to see how such declaration or injunction can be granted by the Court. The directive of Shri Charan Singh is nothing but an advice or suggestion to the Chief Minister of each plaintiff State to recommend to the Governor dissolution of the Legislative Assembly of the concerned State. It has been wrongly described as a directive. It has no constitutional authority behind it. It is always open to the Home Minister of the Central Government to give advice or suggestion to the Chief Minister of a State and the Chief Minister may accept or reject such advice or suggestion according as he thinks fit. The advice o r suggestion has no binding effect on the Chief Minister and no legal consequence flow from it. Hence it is not possible to say that the directive issued by Shri Charan Singh was unconstitutional, illegal or ultra vires. There is a lso no, question of giving effect to the directive and no injunction can, therefore, be granted restraining its implementation. The directive, if not accepted and carried but would certainly be a precursor to action under Art. 356, cl. (1) and, therefore, may be regarded as indicative of a threat, but standingby itself, it does not give rise to any cause of action in the State for declaration or injunction. Turning to the relief sought against the threatened exercise of power under Art. 356, cl. (1) we find that what is prayed for in this relief is permanent injunction restraining the defendant from taking recourse under Art. 356 of the Constitution of India to dissolve the Legislative Assembly of the State and from taking any steps from holding fresh elections to the State Assembly before March, 1978. It is indeed difficult to appreciate, how such a wide and sweeping injunction can be granted by this Court restraining the Union of India from exercising altogether its powers under Art. 356, cl. (1). How can the Union of India be prevented by this Court from discharging its constitutional obligations to the State. We have already pointed out that there is a constitutional duty enjoined on the Union of India to ensure that the Government of every State is carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and there is equally a constitutional obligation on the President that is, the Central Government, to, take action under Art. 356, Cl. (1), if he finds that a situation has arisen where the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Can this Court issue a blanket order against the Union of India that whatever be the situation which may develop in the State and howsoever necessary it may become to exercise the power under Art. 356 cl. (1), the Union of India shall not take recourse, to that power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly of the State and hold fresh elections, to the State Legislative Assembly before March, 1978. That would clearly obstruct its discharge of the constitutional obligations by the Central Government and no such injunction can be issued by this Court.Realising this difficulty in their way, the plaintiff-States sought to limit the relief of injunction by confining it only to the ground set out in the directive of Shri Charan Singh and in the statement made by Shri Shanti Bhushan, Law Minister, at a talk on the All India Radio given by him. That ground, according to the plaintiff-States, was that since the Congress which was the ruling party in these States suffered a mass ive defeat at the General Elections to the Lok Sabha held in March 1977, the Legislative Assemblies of these States no longer reflected the wishes or views of the electorate and hence a fresh appeal to the political sovereign had become necessary and obligatory and the Legislative Assemblies of these States should, therefore, be dissolved with a view to obtaining a fresh mandate from the electorate. It was contended on behalf of the PlaintiffStates that this was the only ground on which Central Government proposed to take action under Art. 356, cl. (1) and since this ground was wholly extraneous and irrelevant to the basic condition for taking action under Art. 356, cl. (1), the Central Government was constitutionally not entitled to take. action under this clause and if any such action were taken by the Central Government, it would be outside the limits of its constitutionalThe learned Additional Solicitor Gene ral combated this contention by giving ad answer. First, he contended that it was not correct to say that the points of view expressed by Shri Charan Singh and Shri Shanti Bhushan constituted the only material or ground for the possible action under Art. 356, cl. (1). He urged that the points of view of these two ministers could not be equated with the advice which the Council of Ministers might give to the President under Art. 74, cl. (1) in regard to the dissolution of the Legislative Assemblies of the Plaintiff-States. The exercise of power under Art. 356, cl. (1), it was said, depends on a wide range, of situations depending upon varied and diverse considerations and it is not possible to say what grounds might ultimately weigh with the Council of Ministers in giving their advice to the President under Art. 74, cl. (1). Secondly he urged that in any event the ground that the, Legislative Assemblies of the Plaintiff-States had ceased to reflect the will of the electorate and, therefore, in order to ascertain the will of the people, and give effect to it, it was appropriate that the Legislative Assemblies should be dissolved and election should be held, was a ground which had reasonable nexus with the basic condition for invoking the exercise of power under Art. 356, cl. (1) and it was a legitimate and relevant ground which could be taken into account in arriving at the satisfaction that the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of thewere the rival contentions of the parties which we must now proceed to consider.But before we do so, we must at the threshold refer to one other argument of the learned Additional Solicitor General which sought to exclude the jurisdiction of the Court in relation to a question of this kind. He contended that the question whether in. a particular State a situation has arisen where the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution and, therefore. action should be taken under Art. 356, cl. (1) is essentially a political question entrusted by the Constitution to the Union executive and on that account it is not justiciable before the Court. He urged that having regard to the political nature of the problem, it is not amenable to judicial determination and hence the Court must abstain from inquiring into, it. We do not think we can accept this argument. Of course, it is true that if a question brought before the Court is purely a political question not involving determination of any legal or constitutional right or obligation, the Court would not entertain it, since the Court is concerned only with adjudication of legal rights and liabilities. But merely because a question has a political complexion, that by itself is no ground why the Court should shrink from performing its duty under the Constitution if it raises an issue of constitutional determination. Every constitutional question concerns the allocation and exercise of governmental power and no constitutional question can, therefore, fail to be political. A constitution is a matter of purest politics, a structure of power and as pointed out by Charles Black in Perspectives in Constitutional law constitutional law symbolizes an intersection of law and politics, wherein issues of political power are acted on by persons trained in the legal tradition, working in judicial institutions, following the procedures of law, thinking as lawyers think. It was pointed out by Mr. Justice Brennan in the Opinion of the Court delivered by him in Baker v. Carr, (369 U.S. 186.) an apoch making decision in American constitutional history, that the mere fact that the suit seeks protection, of a political right does not mean that it presents a political question. This was put in more emphatic terms in Nixon v. Herndon(273 U.S. 536.) by saying that such an objection is little more than a play upon words. The, decision in Baker v. Carr, (Supra) was indeed a striking advance in the field of constitutional law in the United States. Even before Baker v. Carr., the courts in t he United States were dealing with a host of questions political in ordinary comprehension. Even the desegregation decision of the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education(347 U.S. 483.) had a clearly political complexion. The Supreme Court also entertained questions in regard to the political right of voting and felt no hesitation about relieving against racial discrimination in voting and in Gomillion v. Lightfoot(364 U.S. 339.), it did this even when the racial discrimination was covert, being achieved by so redrawing a municipal boundary as to exclude virtually all Negroes, and no whites, from the city franchise. It is true that in Colegrove v. Green(328 U.S. 549.) the Supreme Court refused relief against Congressional districting inequities in illinois, but only three out of seven Justices who sat in that case based their decision on the ground that the question presented before them was political and non-justiciable and this view was in effect and substance reversed by the Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr. The Supreme Court in Baker v. Carr, held that it was within the competence of the federal Courts to entertain an action challenging a statute apportioning legislative districts as contrary to the equal protection clause. This case clearly decided a controversy which was political in character, namely, apportioning of legislative districts but it did so because a constitutionalf violation of the equal protection clause was directly involved and that question was plainly and indubitably within the jurisdiction of the Court to decide. It will, therefore, be seen that merely because a question has a political colour, the Court cannot fold its hands in despair and declare as a question arise s whether an authority under the constitution has acted within the limits of its power or exceeded it, it can certainly be decided by the Court. Indeed it would be its constitutional obligation to do so. It is necessary to assert in the clearest terms, particularly in the context of recent history, that the Constitution is Suprema lex, the paramount law of the land, and there is no department or branch of government above or beyond it. Every organ of government, be it the executive or the legislature or the judiciary, derives its authority from the Constitution and it has to act within the limits of its authority. No one howsoever highly placed and no authority howsoever lofty can claim that it shall be the sole judge of the extent of its power under the Constitution or whether its action is within the confines of such power laid down the Constitution. This Court is the ultimate interpret er of the Constitution and to this Court is assigned the delicate task of determining what is the power conferred on each branch of government, whether it is limited, and if so, what are the limits and whether any action of that branch transgresses such limits. It is for this Court to uphold the , constitutional values and to enforce the constitutional limitations. That is the essence of the rule of law. To quote the words of Mr. Justice Brennan in Baker v. Carr, Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation and i s a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. Where there is manifestly unauthorised exercise of power under the Constitution, it is the duty of the Court to intervene. Let it not be forgotten, that to this Cou rt as much as to other branches of government, is committed the conservation and furtherance of democratic values. The Courts task is to identify those values in the constitutional plan and to work them into life in the cases that reach the Cour t. Tact and wise restraint ought to tamper any power but courage and the acceptance of responsibility have their place too. The Court cannot and should not shirk this responsibility, because it has sworn the oath of alligance to the Constitution and is also accountable to the people of this Country. There are indeed numerous decisions of this Court where constitutional issues have been adjudicated upon though enmeshed in questions of religious tenets, social practices, economic doctrines or educational policies. The Court has in these cases adjudicated not upon the social, religious, economic , or other issues, but solely on the constitutional questions brought before it and in doing so, the Court has not be en deterred by the fact that these constitutional questions may have such other overtones or facets. We cannot, therefore, decline to examine whether there is any constitutional violation involved in the President doing what he threatens to do, merely on the facile ground that the question is political in tone, colour or complexion.But when we say this, we must make it clear that the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is confined only to saying whether the limits on the power conferred by the Constitution have been observed or there is transgression of such limits. Here the only limit on the Power of the President under Art. 356, cl. (1) is that the President should be satisfied that a situation has arisen whe re the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. The satisfaction of the President is a subjective one and , cannot be tested by reference to any objective tests. It is deliberately and advisedly subjective because the matter in respect to which he is to be satisfied is of such a nature that its decision must necessarily be left to the executive branch of Government. There may be a wide range of situations which may arise and the ir political implications and consequences may have to be evaluated in order to decide whether the situation is such that the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It is not a decision which can be based on what the Supreme Court of United States has described as judicially discoverable and manageable standards. It would largely be a political judgment based on assessment of diverse and varied factors, fast changing situations, potential consequences, public reaction, motivations and responses of different classes of people and their anticipated future behaviour and a host of other considerations, in the light of experience of public affairs and pragmatic management of complex and often curious adjustments that go to make up the highly sophisticated mechanism of a modern democratic government. It cannot, therefore, by its very nature be a fit subject matter for judicial determination and hence it is left to the subjective satisfaction of the Central Government which is best in a position to decide it. The Court cannot in the circumstances, go into the question of correctness or adequacy of the fact s and circumstances on which the satisfaction of the Central Government is based. That would be a dangerous exercise for the Court, both because it is not a fit instrument for determining a question of this kind and also because the Court would thereby usurp the function of the Central Government and in doing so, enter the Political thicket, which it must avoid if it is to retain its legitimacy with the people. In fact it would not be possible for the Court to undertake this exercise, apart from total lack of jurisdiction to do so, since by reason of Art. 74 cl. (2), the question whether any and if so what advice was tendered by the Ministers to the President cannot be enquired into by the Court, and moreover, the step s taken by the responsible Government may be founded on information and apprehensions which are not known to and cannot always be made, known to, those who seek to impugn what has been done.,  (Vide Ningkan v. Government of Malaysia ([1970] A.C. 379.). But one thing is certain that if the satisfaction is mala fide or is based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant grounds, the Court would have jurisdiction to examine it, because in that case there would be no satisfaction of the President in regard to the matter which he is required to be satisfied. The satisfaction of the President is a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Art. 356, cl. (1) and if it can be shown that there is no satisfaction of the President at all, the exercise of the power would be constitutionally invalid. Of course by reason of cl. (5) of Art. 356, the satisfaction of the President is final and conclusive and cannot be assailed on any ground but this immunity from attack cannot apply where the challenge is not that the satisfaction is improper or unjustified, but that there is, no satisfaction at all. In such a case it is not the satisfaction arrived at by the President which is challenged, but the existence of the satisfaction itself. Take, for example, a case where the President gives the reason for taking action under Art. 356, cl. (1) and says that he is doing so, because the Chief Minister of the State is below five feet in height and, therefore, in his opinion a situation has arisen where the Government of the State cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. Can the so called satisfaction of the President in such a case not be challenged on the ground that it is absurd or perverse or mala fide or based on a wholly extraneous and irrelevant ground and is, therefore, no satisfaction at all. It must of course be concerned that in most cases it would be difficult, if not impossible, to challenge the exercise of power under Art. 356, cl. (1 ) even on this limited ground, because the facts and circumstances on which the satisfaction is based would not be known, but where it is possible, the existence of the satisfaction can always be challenged on the ground that it is mala fide or based on wholly extraneous and irrelevant grounds. This proposition derives support from the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in King Emperor v. Banwari Lal Sarma(72 I.A. 57.) where Viscount Simon, L.C. agreed that the Governor General in declaring that emergency exists must act bona fide and in accordance with his statutory powers. This is the narrow minimal area in which the exercise of power under Art. 356, cl. (1) is subject to judicial review and apart from it, it cannot rest with the Court to challenge the satisfaction of the President that the situation contemplated in that clause exists.Let us now turn to the facts and examine them in the light of the principle discussed. It would seem from the above discussion that if it can be established affirmatively (1) that the proposed action of the President under Art. 356, Cl. (1) would be based only on the (, round that the Legislative Assemblies of the Plaintiff-States have ceased to reflect the will of the electorate and they should, therefore, be dissolved with a view to giving an opportunity to the people to elect their true representatives and (2) that this ground is wholly extraneous and irrelevant to the question which the President has to consider for the purpose of arriving at the requisite satisfaction, the PlaintiffStates might have a case for injunction against the Union of India. But we are afraid that neither of these two propositions can be said to be established in the present suitsThe right of a particular State to sue is not always equivalent to the right of the Council of Ministers in all matters. Even if a Government goes the State lives. Whether a particular Council of Ministers can survive threats to their existence depends no doubt immediately on its ability to enjoy the confidence of the majority in the Legislature, but also, in the last resort, in its ability to enjoy the confidence of the political sovereign, the electorate. The questions affecting the latter domain are. of highly political complexion and appertain to political rights of the Government and not to legal rights of the State. The rights agitated by the plaintiffs are principally of the Governments concerned who are interested in continuing the legislatures whose confidence they enjoy. On the other hand, it is claimed by the Home Minister in his letter that these Legislatures have lost the mandate of the people and that there is clear evidence , of their having lost the confidence of the people as a result o f the verdict in the recent general election to the Parliament. The Court is not concerned whether this is a (correct assessment or not. The Union Government is entitled to take political decisions. However, even if a political decision of the Government of India affects legal rights of the State as a legal entity, the existence and extent of that right will be triable under Article 131.The question is, are legal rights of the State involved in the dispute ?Article 131 speaks of a legalThat legal right must he that , of the State. The dispute about a legal right, its existence or extent, must be capable of agitation between the Government of India and the States. The character of the dispute within the scope of Artic le 131 that emerges is with regard to, a legal right which the States may be able to claim against the Government. For example, the State as a party must affirm a legal right of its own which the Government of India has denied or is interested in denying giving rise to a cause of action. For the purpose of deciding whether Article 131 is attracted the subject matter of the dispute, therefore, assumes great importances a clear illustration of a real dispute involving a legal; right. In that case the main dispute was regarding the question whether the fines credited to Provincial revenues and not to the Cantonment Funds belonged to the Province or the Central Government through the Cantonment. It will be noticed that the Federal Court clearly held that such a dispute clearly fell within the purview of S. 204(1) of the Government of India Act which was in pari materia to Art. 131 of the Constitution. That case is purely illustrative and decides that it is only such type of disputes as are contemplated by Art. 131. For these reasons, therefore, I am clearly of the view that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it has not been established that there was any dispute involving a legal right between the Government of India and the State Governments, and therefore one of the essential ingredients of Art. 131 not having been fulfilled the suits are not maintainable on this ground aloneA perusal of these Articles would reveal in unequivocal terms that wherever the Constitution has used the word State without any qualification it means State in the ordinary sense of its term, namely, the State along with its territory or institution s. Article 3 expressly empowers the Parliament to increase or diminish the area or territory of any State. It has no reference to the State Government at all or for that matter to a particular State Government run by a particular party. In my opinion, therefore, the word State in Art. 131 has also been used in this ordinary sense so as to include only the territory of the State and the permanent institutions contained therein. A dispute arising between the personnel running the institutions is beyond the ambit of Art. 131. Further more, it would appear that cls. (a)) of Art. 131 deliberately and advisedly use the word Government of India and one or more States. If the intention was to bring even, a Stale Government as run by the Council of Ministers within the purview of this provision, then the words one or more State Governments should have been used instead of using the word State. This is, therefore, an intrinsic circumstance which shows that the founding fathers of the Constitution intended that the dispute should be contained only to the Government of India and the States as a polity or a constituent unit of the republic instead of bringing in dispute raised by the Government run by a particular Council of Ministers which does not pertain to the State as such.Thus, summarising my conclusions on this point, the position is that the importThese observations, however, do not support the argument of Mr. Niren De at all. Even if an issue is not justiciable, if the circumstances relied upon by the executive authority are absolutely extraneous and irrelevant, the Courts have the undoubted power to scrutinise such an exercise of the executive power. Such a judicial scrutiny is one which comes into operation when the exercise of the executive power is colourable or mala fide and based on extraneous or irrelevant considerations. I shall deal with this aspect of the matter a little later. It is, however, sufficient to indicate here that an order passed under Art. 356 is immune from judicial scrutiny and unless it is shown that the President has been guided by extraneous considerations it cannot be examined by the CourtsThis brings us to the second facet of this argument, namely, whether the facts stated in the letter of the Home Minister or in the press or t he radio interviews are sufficient to enable the Central Government to take a decision to advise the President to dissolve the StateWe have already extracted the important portions of the statements made in the letter of the Home Minister and in the radio interview of the Law Minister and the Press interview of the Home Minister. These assertions made by the Ministers of the Central Government have, however, to be read and understood in the light of the prevailing circumstances which are established from the notifications issued by the Government of India from time to time which we shall deal with hereafter.By virtue of Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification No. G.S.R. 353 (E) dated June 26, 1975 the P resident of India issued a proclamation declaring that a grave emergency exists whereby the, security of India was threatened by internal disturbance. This notification was followed by another Ministry of Home Affairs Notification No. G.S .R. 361 (E) dated June 27, 1975 issued by the President under clause (1) of Art. 359 of the Constitution by which the right of any person to move any Court for the enforcement of the rights conferred by article 14, article 21 and article 22 of the Constitution were suspended for the period during which the proclamation of emergency was in force. Then followed the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (No. 4 of 1975) which was promulgated an June 29, 1975 and published in the Government of India Gazette, Extraordinary, Part 11, Section I dated June, 1975. pp. 213-15. Section 5 of the Ordinance added s. 16A and sub-s(6) of s. 16A provided that it shall not be necessary to disclose to any person detained under a detention order the grounds on which the order had been made during the period the declaration made in respect of such a person was in force. This was followed by the Maintenance of Internal Security (Amendment) Act, 1976 passed on January 25, 1976 which added sub-s. (9) to s. 16A of the principal Act which provided that the grounds on which an order of detention was made or purported to be made under s. 3 against any person in respect of whom a declaration was made under sub-s. (2) or sub-s. (3) and any information or materials on which such grounds or a declaration under sub-s. (2) or a declaration or confirmation under sub-s. (3) etc. was made was to be treated as confidential and shall be deemed to refer to matters of State and it would be against the public interest to disclose the same. Thus the effect of this provision was that no Court could call for the materials on the basis of which the order of detention was passed. In other words, any detention made during this period was put beyond judicial scrutiny. While this state of affairs existed, the President by order dated January 18, 1977 dissolved the Lok Sabha under Art.85 of the Constitution as would appear the Lok Sabha Secretariat Notification dated January 19, 1977 published in the Government of India Gazette Extraordinary, Part I, Section 1, dated January 19, 1977. This was followed by notification dated February 10, 1977 by the Ministry of Law. Justice and Company Affairs passed under sub-s. (2) of s. 14 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by which the President called upon the parliamentary constituencies to elect members in accordance with the provisions of the said Ac t and of the rules and orders made thereunder. In pursuance of this notification the Election Commission of India issued a notification on the same day appointing the dates of elections to be held in various constituencies which varied from 16t h to 20th March, 1977. According to this Notification there were 54 constituencies in Bihar, 10 constituencies in Haryana, 4 in Himachal Pradesh, 40 in Madhya Pradesh, 25 in Rajasthan, 85 in Uttar Pradesh, 42 in West Bengal, 21 in Orissa and 13 in Punjab. All these constituencies elected their representatives and from the results of the Lok Sabha as published in the Indian Express of March 25, 1977 it would appear that out of 85 constituencies in Uttar Pradesh not a single candidate belonging to the Congress party was returned. Similarly in Bihar out of 54 constituencies not a single candidate of the Congress party was elected. Similarly out of 13 constituencies in Punjab and 10 constituencies in Haryana not a single candidate of the Congress party was returned. The same position obtained in Himachal Pradesh where out of 4 constituencies not a Single Congress candidate was elected. In the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Orissa, the Congress party appears to have fared very badly also. In Madhya Pradesh out of 40 seats, the Congress party could bag only one seat, whereas in Rajasthan also the Congress met with a similar fate where it got only I seat out of 25 seats. In Orissa, also the Congress got only 4 seats out of 21 and in West Bengal it got only 3 seats out of 42. It would thus appear that in the nine states referred to above, the Congress party was practically routed. It is also clear that the voters who voted for the candidates standing for the Lok Sabha in the States were more or less the same who had voted the Congress party in the State Assemblies during the previous elections.Thus, summarising the position in short, it is clear(1) that a grave emergency was clamped in the whole country;(2) that civil liberties were withdrawn to a great extent;(3) that important fundamental rights of the people were suspended;(4) that strict censorship on the press was placed; and(5) that the judicial powers were crippled to a large extentIn the new elections the Congress party suffered a major reverse in the nine states and the people displayed complete lack of confidence in the Congress party. The cumulative effect of the circumstances mentioned above may lead to a reasonable inference that the people had given a massive verdict not only against the Congress candidates who fought the elections to the Lok Sabha but also to the policies and ideologies followed by the Congress Governments as a whole whether at the Centre or in the States during the twenty months preceding the elections . In these circumstances it cannot be said that the inference drawn by the Home Minister that the State Governments may have forfeited the confidence of the people is not a reasonable one or had no nexus with the action proposed to be taken under Art . 356 for dissolution of the AssembliesIt was suggested that the present ruling party wanted to have a President of its own choice and, therefore, it wanted to dissolve all the Assemblies and order fresh elections so that they are able to get candidates of their own choice elected to the various Assemblies. In the first place, there is no reliable material to prove this fact or to show that the Central Government was in any way swayed by those considerations. Secondly, if the Congress Governments in the States Concerned Were so sure of their position, I do not see any reason why they should not be able to face the challenge and after taking fresh mandate from the people vindicate their stand. Furthermore, we have to look at the circumstances catalogued above in order to find out whether an inference drawn by the Central Government from those circumstances can be said to be a reasonable one. Even assuming that from the circumstances mentioned above, the other inference that the electorate might choose different candidates for the States and the Lok Sabha is equally possible that by itself does not make t he action of the Central Government mala fide or ultra vires. If two inferences are reasonably possible, the very foundation of mala fide disappears. On the other hand, the important question to ask oneself is, could under the circum stances mentioned above and the manner in which the people have acted and reacted to the emergency and the post emergency era by returning a massive verdict against the Congress, it be said that the Central Government was guided by purely irrelevant or inept considerations or external or extraneous motives in wanting to have fresh elections to the Assemblies? The answer must be in the negative. I am convinced that having regard to the circumstances detailed above, the vie w taken by the Home Minister and the Law Minister cannot be said to be either extraneous or irrelevant or mala fide. The contention of the counsel for the plaintiffs and the petitioners on this score is, therefore, overruled.There is yet another facet of this problem. Assuming that the reasons and the grounds disclosed by the Home Minister in his letter are extraneous or irrelevant this is only the first stage of the matter. The second stage-which is the most vital stage-i s the one which comes into existence when the Council of Ministers deliberate and finally decide to advise the President. As to what further grounds may be considered by them at that time is anybodys guess. It is quite possible that the Council of Ministers may base the advice on grounds other than those mentioned in the letter of the Home MinisterIt was further argued by Mr. Garg as also by Mr. Bhatia appearing for the State of Himachal Pradesh that even assuming that Art. 356() (a) confers the power given to the Governor by Art. 174(2) it would be a proper exercise of the discretion of the President to prorogue the Assembly instead of taking the extreme course of dissolving it. This, however, is purely a matter which lies within the domain of politics. The Court cannot substitute its discretion for that of the President nor is it for the Court to play the role of an Advisor as to what the President or the Council of Ministers should do in a particular event. The Central Government which advises the President is the best Judge of facts to decide as to what course should be adopted in a particular case, namely, whether the Legislative Assembly should be prorogued or should be dissolved and it is open to the President to take any of these two actions and if he prefers one to the other, this matter is beyond judicial review. For these reasons, therefore, I am clearly of the opinion that Art. 356 does not contain any express or implied limitations on the nature or functions of the Governor which are to be exercised by the President under Art. 356(1) (a)..I generally agree with my Lord the Chief Justice on the other points lucidly discussed by him, except with regard to his observations regarding the theory of the basic structure of the Constitution on which I would refrain from expressing any opinion, because the question does not actually arise for decision in this Case14. I think that the two Union Ministers have stated certain grounds for inferring that the time has come to give the people the political sovereign a chance to pronounce its verdict on the fates of State Governments and legislatures in the nine States also in a manner which is constitutionally not open to objection. In so far as article 356 (1) may embrace matters of political and executive policy and expediency courts cannot interfere with these unless and until it is shown what constitutional provision the President is going to contravene of has contravened on admitted grounds of action under Article 356 (1) for, while Article 74(2) disables Courts from inquiring into the very existence or nature or contents of ministerial advice to the President, Article 356(5) makes it impossible for Courts to question the Presidents satisfaction on any ground. Hence, Court$, can only determine the validity of the action on whatever may remain for them to consider on what are admitted, on behalf of the President, to be grounds of Presidential satisfaction. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs and petitioners, when confronted with Article 35 6 (5), said they would challenge its validity as a provision violating, the basic structure of the Constitution. We, however, heard objections to the maintainability of suits and petitions even apart from the specific bar in Article 356(5). And, I propose to deal principally with those other objections.This Court has never abandoned its constitutional function as the final judge of constitutionality of all acts purported to be done under the authority of the Constitution. It has not refused to determine questions either of fact or of law so long as it has found itself possessed of power to do it and the cause of justice to be capable of being vindicated by its actions. But, it cannot assume unto itself powers the Constitution lodges elsewhere or undertake tasks entrusted by the Constitution to other departments of State which may be better equipped to perform them. The scrupulously discharged duties of all guardians of the Constitution include the duty not to transgress the- limitations of their Own constitutionally circumscribed powers by trespassing into what is properly the domain of other constitutional organs. Questions of political wisdom or executive policy only could not be subjected to judicial control. No doubt executive policy must also be subordinated to constitutionally sanctioned purposes. It has its sphere and limitations. But, so long as it operates within that sphere, its operations are immune from judicial interference. This is also a part of the doctrine of a rough separation of powers under the Supremacy of the Constitution repeatedly propounded by this Court and to which the Court unswervingly adheres even when its views differ or change on the correct interpretation of a particular constitutional provision19. Even if we were to narrow down the concept of a basic structure to bring it in accordance with the concept found in the passage cited above, we could only strike down that executive policy which could fairly appear to be a clear deviation from w hat the basic structure requires. What would be, as the report of the speech of the Law Minister shows, fairly and reasonably viewed as a policy intended to strengthen or secure what is included in that basic structure could not be struck down or con trolled at all by this Court as that would be an attempt to control executive policy within a sphere which is its own and where its supremacy must be and has been consistently upheld by this Court20. The basic assumption underlying the views expressed above, is that each of the three organs of the State-The Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary has its own orbit of authority and operation. It must be left free by the other organs. to operate within that sphere even if it commits error s there. It is not for one of the three organs of State either to correct or to point an accusing finger at the other merely because it thinks that some error has been committed by the other when acting within the limits of its own powers. But, if either the Executive or the Legislature exceeds the scope of its powers, it places itself in the region where the effects of that excess should be capable of removal by the Judiciary which ought to redress the wrong done when properly brought up before it. A scrupulous adherence to this scheme is necessary for the smooth operations of our Constitutional mechanisms of checks and balances. It implies due respect for and confidence in each organ of our Republic by the other twoAs observed above, it is no where laid down either in the Constitution or any law dealing with holding of elections to a legislative assembly what circumstances will justify its dissolution sooner than the duration it would otherwise enjoy.It was argued that the only authority empowered to dissolve a legislative assembly under Artic le 174 (2) (b) of the Constitution was the Governor of a State who had to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers in the State. It was submitted that the Union Government could not either advise, or in the form of advice, direct the State Government to ask the Governor to dissolve the State Assembly under any circumstances. Apparently, the principle of construction relied upon was a much used and easily misused principle; expressio unius est exclusio alterius. We do not think that such a principle could help the plaintiffs before us at all in as much as article 356 of the Constitution very clearly provides for the assumption by the President to himself all or any of the functions of the Government of the State and all or any of the powers vested in or exercisable by the Governor. Article 174(2) (b) of the Constitution expressly vests the power of dissolving the legislative assembly in the Governor even if that had to be on the advice of the Council of Ministers in the State, but the power to give such advice would automatically, be taken over by the Union Government for the purposes of dissolution of the State Assembly when the President assumes governmental powers by a proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution. A dissolution by the President after the proclamation would be as good as a dissolution by the Governor of a State whose powers; are taken over27. The position of the Governor as the Constitutional head of State as a unit of the Indian Union as well) as the formal channel of communication between the Union and the State Government, who is appointed under article 155 of the Constitution by the President by Warrant under his hand and seal,was also touched in the course of arguments before us. On the one hand, as the Constitutional head of the State. he is ordinarily bound, by reason of a constitutional convention, by the advice of his Council of Ministers conveyed to him th rough the Chief Minister barring very exceptional circumstances among which may be as pointed out by my learned brothers Bhagwati and Iyer, JJ., in Shamsher Singhs case, supra (p. 875) a situation in which an appeal to the electorate by a dissolution is called for. On the other hand, as the defender of the Constitution and the law and the watch-dog of the interests of the whole country and well-being of the people of his State in particular, the, Governor is vested with certain discretionary powers in the exercise of which he can act independently. One of his independent functions is the making of the report to the Union Government on the strength of which Presidential power under Article 356(1) of the Constitution could be exercised. In so far as he acts in the larger interests of the people, appointed by the President to defend the Constitution and the Law he acts as an observer on behalf of the Union and has to keep a watch on how the administrative machinery and each or gan of constitutional Government is working in the State. Unless he keeps such a watch over all governmental activities and the State of public feelings about them he cannot satisfactorily discharge his function of making the report which may form the basis of the Presidential satisfaction under Article 356(1) of the Constitution. Indeed, the usual practice is that the President acts under Article 356(1) of the Constitution only on the Governors report. But, the, use of the words or otherwise (in article 356) show that Presidential satisfaction could be based on other material as well. This feature of our Constitution indicates most strikingly the extent to which inroads have been made by it on the federal principles of Government32. As we have tried to indicate above, attempts to secure political victories, by appeals to the electorate, are parts of the recognised rules of a democratic system of government permitting contests between rival parties so as to achieve certain other objectives. If such a contest with the desire for achieving a political victory in order to enforce certain programmes, believed by the members of a party to be beneficial for the people in a State, as a method of achieving the objects set out in the Preamble, are not only legal and permissible under the Constitution, but, obviously, constitute the only possible legitimate and legal means of attaining the power to enforce policies believed to be correct by various parties, according to their own lights, it could not possibly be asserted that procuring the dissolution of a State Legislative Assembly, with the object of gaining a political victory, is, in itself, an extraneous object which could not fall at ail under article 356 of the Constitution. In order to apply the doctrine that something cannot be done indirectly because it could not be done directly, it must first be established either that the object or the means are legally prohibited. In the cases before us, it does not appear to us that the object of gaining a political victory , set out in the plaints is, by itself, legally prohibited. Nor is there anything in law to prohibit a recourse to the means adopted. There is no assertion in the plaints or the petitions that anything is being done or attempted by legally prohibited means for a legally prohibited purpose. All that is suggested is that it is morally represensible to try to obtain an electoral victory in the States by dissolving the Assemblies so as to get rid of the Congress Governments in power there. On such a question of moral worth of either the ends or the means adopted, this Court cannot possibly sit in judgment. It is enough for our purposes that the plaints and the petitions do not disclose anything extraneous to the purpose of Article 356 (1) of the Constitution in the eyes of law. The sufficiency or adequacy of the grounds for action under article 356(1) of the Constitution is quite another matter. We do not think that we can go into that at all here.We find that in the plaint of the State of Himachal Pradesh the term prerogative has been used for the power of the State Governor to dissolve a Legislative Assembly, under Article 174, as though there was a violation of that prerogative by some paramount prerogative asserted by the Union Government. I do not think that the term prerogative can be correctly used, in its technical sense, with reference to any power exercised under our ConstitutionUnder our Constitution there is no prerogative in that technical sense. All constitutional powers are regulated by our written Constitution. There may be room for the development of conventions on a matter not fully covered as to the mode of exercise of a discretion or power. But, that is a matter distinct from prerogative. Under our Constitution, the residue of that power, which is neither legislative nor judicial, is covered by the caption: Executive. Thus, the equivalent of most prerogative powers would fall, under our law, under the heading of executive powers. Inasmuch as the term prerogative is sometimes used in a wider non-technical sense, as something which gives pre-eminence or an overriding attribute to a power, it may be said that such a power is lodged in the Union Government under Article 356(1) of the Constitution on all matters covered by that provision. The only question in such cases is whether the matter in relation to which the Union Government is proceeding or has acted is or is not within the purview of Article 356(t) of The Constitution. If it lies within that sphere, the Courts cannot interfere on the ground, at any rate, , that it is extraneous.Whenever the exercise of power to issue a proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution has been challenged in a High Court it has been held that sufficiency of grounds on which the order, is based could not be questioned. Some of the dicta found there seem to lay down that the exercise of power to issue proclamations is not justiciable at all under any circumstances. This Court has not gone so far us that. If it is actually stated on behalf of the Union Government that an action was taken on a particular ground which really falls completely outside the purview of Article 356(1), the proclamation will be vitiated, not because the satisfaction was challenged or called in question on any ground but because it was admitted to be on matters outside Article 356(1)The power of the Governor-General was described as an absolute; powerin Bhagat Singhs case (supra), but learned counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the observation there that it is only to be used in extreme cases of necessity where the good Government of India demands it. We do not think that much assistance can be derived from a provision of the Government of India Act, 1935, which was really the precurser of Article 123 of our Constitution and meant for use in a different context in an Imperialistic era. Nevertheless, it shows t hat. even without a provision ousting the jurisdiction of the Courts, the subjective satisfaction of the Governor-General was held. to be unquestionable36. It is true that, as indicated above, the advice tendered by the Ministers to the President cannot be inquired into. It is also clear beyond doubt that the amended article 74(1) of the Constitution, whose validity has not been challenged before us by any party, makes it obligatory on the President to act in accordance with the advice tendered by the Union Council of Ministers, to him through the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, if all the grounds of action taken under article 356(1) of the Constitution are disclosed to the public by the Union Government and its own disclosure of ground s reveals that a constitutionally or legally prohibited or extraneous or collateral purpose is sought to be achieved by a proclamation under article 356 of the Constitution, this Court will not shirk its duty to act in the manner in which the law may then oblige it to act. But, when we find that allegations made in the plaints and in the petitions before us relate, in substance, only to the sufficiency of the grounds of action under article 356(1) of the Constitution, and go no further, we cannot proceed further with the consideration of the plaints under Article 131 or the petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.I would not like to leave certain other matters also argued before us untouched in this fairly comprehensive expression of our views. It was urged that the power of dissolution of a State Legislative Assembly, even if it could be assumed by the President under Article 356(1) of the Constitution, after a failure of the State Government to carry out a direction of the Union Government on the subject, could no+ be exercised unless and until the matter bad been placed before both the Houses of Parliament so that it bad been subjected to such control as either of the two Houses of Parliament may chose to exercise over it. Proclamations under article 356(1) are bound to be placed under article 356(3) of the Constitution before each house of Parliament. Unfortunately, however, for this line of argument, there is not only nothing in article 356 to make a consideration by either House of Parliament a condition precedent to the exercise of the power of dissolution of a State Legislative Assembly by the President under article 356(1), but, on the other hand, article 356(3). makes it clear that the only effect of even a failure or refusal by either House of Parliament to approve the proclamation is that it ceases to operate after two months. Obviously, this means that it operates for at least two months. Hence, whatever is done in these two months cannot be held to be illegal for hat reason alone. The interpretation placed before us for acceptance is directly opposed to the language of the provisions of the Constitution. It has, therefore, to be rejected by us outright as quite unreasonable and unacceptable. It is true that the exercise of power under article 356 of the Constitution is subject to Parliamentary control. This means that it is subject to such control as the two Houses, out of which the Council of States really represents the State Assemblies, may be able to exercise during the period for which the proclamation lasts. But, the existence of such Parliamentary control, as a safeguard, cannot possibly nullify the legality of what is done in the period during which the Proclamation lasts.It was also contended by Mr. R. K. Garg that, unless the Parliament acts legislatively for the State Legislature, the incurring of any expenditure, by the Governor or anybody else after a Presidential Proclamation under article 356, would not be permissible in view of Article 357(1) (c) of the Constitution. After making such an assumption, we were asked to import an implied prohibition against a dissolution of a State Legislative Assembly unless and until both Houses of Parliament bad discussed and approved of it40. Reference was made to passages from State of Bihar v. Union of India] 2 S.C.R. 522.) and the United Provinces v. The Governor-General in Council. ([1939] F.C.R. 124.) It seems to me that the decision of this Court in State of Bihar and Union of India and Anr. (supra) was largely based upon the assumption t hat Article 131 was meant to cover the same area as s. 204 of the Government of India Act. Moreover, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Union, did not press the argument that article 131 is confined to declaratory decrees in view of the fact that (as Mr. Seervai pointed out in the Constitutional Law of India, 2nd Edn. Vol. 11 at p. 1385) article 142 (1) of the Constitution provides for enforcement of decrees of this Court. The view expressed in the Bihar case (supra) seemed to have been affected considerably by the fact that there was no provision in the Government of India Act of 1935 for the enforcement of the decrees of the Federal Court, but Article 142(1) seems to have be en overlooked in that case.Article 300 of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that the Government of a State may sue or be sued by the name of the State. From this, Mr. Niren De wanted us to infer that there was no distinction between a State and the State Government as juristic entities. Even if there be some grounds for making a distinction between a States interests and rights and those of its Government or its members, I do not think that we need take a too restrictive or a hyper-technical view of the States rights to sue for any rights, actual or fancied, which the State Government chooses to take up on behalf of the State concerned in a suit under Article 131. Moreover as we have decided not to grant any reliefs after having heard detailed arguments and fully considered the merits of contentions advanced by both sides, I do not think that we need determine, on this occasion, the precise scope of a suit under Article 131. I prefer to base my judgment on other grounds.