Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)
Bihar Assembly Dissolution, Article 356 & Governor’s Powers
Video Explanation
Quick Summary
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) is a landmark Supreme Court case on federalism, democracy and the limits of Governor’s powers. It arose from the political crisis in Bihar after a hung Assembly result.
No party had a clear majority. President’s Rule was imposed and the Assembly was kept in “suspended animation”. Before the newly elected members could even take oath or hold the first sitting, the Governor sent a report alleging horse-trading and misuse of money, caste and office to manufacture a majority. On this report, the Bihar Assembly was dissolved and fresh elections were ordered.
Some MLAs and political actors challenged this decision in the Supreme Court. The Court finally held that the dissolution was unconstitutional and based on weak material. However, since the election process had already started, the Court did not restore the old Assembly.
The case is a key follow-up to S.R. Bommai and teaches how far the Governor and the Union can go under Article 356 without committing a “fraud on the Constitution”.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether a Legislative Assembly can be dissolved before its first meeting and before members take oath.
- Whether the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly on 23 May 2005 was unconstitutional and amounted to a misuse of Article 356.
- Whether the Governor’s report alleging horse-trading was based on relevant and reliable material, or only on suspicion and opinion.
- Whether the Governor’s actions and President’s Proclamation under Article 356 are subject to judicial review.
- If the dissolution is invalid, whether the Court should restore the dissolved Assembly or let the fresh election process continue.
Rules & Constitutional Provisions
-
Article 356(1) – President’s Rule
Allows the President to assume functions of the State government if it cannot be carried on in accordance with the Constitution, on the basis of a report from the Governor or otherwise. -
Article 174(2)(b)
Allows the Governor to dissolve the Legislative Assembly. -
Article 172
Provides that the normal term of a State Assembly is five years from the date of its first meeting. -
Article 188
Requires members of the Legislative Assembly to take oath before taking their seats. -
Article 361(1)
Grants personal immunity to the Governor from being answerable in court, but does not bar judicial review of the material on which his report is based. -
Precedent: S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
Established that President’s Rule under Article 356 is subject to judicial review and that this power must not be used for partisan or political purposes.
These provisions and principles were at the heart of the Court’s analysis of the Governor’s conduct and the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly.
Facts – Timeline of Events
Elections to the Bihar Legislative Assembly are held. The result is a hung Assembly: no single party or alliance secures a clear majority to form the government.
Since no stable government can be formed, President’s Rule under Article 356 is imposed. The Bihar Assembly is kept in “suspended animation”, meaning it is not dissolved immediately but also not functioning normally.
The Governor of Bihar sends a report to the President alleging serious attempts to cobble a majority through horse-trading. He claims MLAs are being lured by money, caste promises and positions in order to form a “tainted” government.
Acting on the Governor’s report, the President issues a Proclamation dissolving the Bihar Assembly and orders fresh elections, even though the Assembly has not yet met for its first sitting and MLAs have not taken oath.
Rameshwar Prasad and other petitioners challenge the dissolution. They argue that the Governor’s report is biased and unsupported by real evidence, and that the dissolution is a fraud on the Constitution.
While the case is pending, the process for fresh elections moves forward. This fact later becomes important when the Court decides the remedy.
Arguments – Petitioners vs Union of India
Petitioners (Rameshwar Prasad & Others)
- The Governor did not have solid material to prove horse-trading; he acted on rumours and political suspicion.
- The Governor allegedly blocked a possible majority from staking claim, including the possibility of Nitish Kumar forming a government, which showed political bias.
- The Assembly had not even held its first meeting and MLAs had not taken oath. Dissolving it at this stage destroyed the people’s mandate without giving the House a chance to function.
- Questions about defection and changing support should be dealt with by the Speaker, not by the Governor.
- The Governor’s actions went against the principles laid down in S.R. Bommai and amounted to a misuse of Article 356.
Union of India & Governor’s Defence
- It was argued that under Article 361, the Governor enjoys immunity and cannot be made personally answerable in court.
- The Governor claimed to have received information from various sources that unethical methods were being used to build a majority, including monetary inducements and caste-based bargains.
- Allowing a government formed on such a “tainted majority” would weaken democracy and go against the spirit of the Constitution.
- The decision to dissolve the Assembly and go for fresh elections was, therefore, presented as a protective step for democratic values.
Supreme Court’s Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly was unconstitutional. The Governor’s report did not contain reliable, objective material to justify such a serious step. It was largely based on assumptions, fears and political opinion.
The Court described the Governor’s action and the resulting dissolution as a kind of “fraud on the Constitution”. The Governor is not a political watchdog. His duty is to protect the Constitution, not to prevent a possible majority from even making a claim to form the government.
At the same time, the Court faced a practical problem: by the time the judgment was delivered, the fresh election process had already started and significant public expense had been incurred. Restoring the old Assembly would create fresh instability.
Therefore, the Court held that while the Proclamation of dissolution was invalid, it would not revive the dissolved Assembly. Instead, the elections already announced would continue. The declaration of unconstitutionality would act as a strong warning for the future.
Ratio Decidendi – Core Legal Reasoning
-
Judicial review of Article 356 is real and effective.
Courts can examine whether the Governor’s report and the President’s Proclamation are based on relevant, credible material. Mere suspicion of horse-trading is not enough. -
Governor is a constitutional head, not a political actor.
The Governor cannot act like a party agent or political ombudsman. He must stay within constitutional limits and let the Speaker and the Assembly deal with issues of defection and majority. -
Dissolution before first sitting is possible but not for wrong reasons.
The Constitution does not say that dissolution can happen only after the first meeting. But if dissolution is based on irrelevant or mala fide grounds, it will be struck down. -
Use of Article 356 must not distort the democratic process.
Article 356 is an extraordinary power. It cannot be used to stop a possible coalition from claiming majority support on the floor of the House. -
Remedy is flexible and depends on timing.
Even when a proclamation is held invalid, the Court may choose not to restore the Assembly if the election process has already moved too far. The focus is also on stability and public interest.
Why This Case Matters
Rameshwar Prasad is a key case for understanding how the Indian Constitution protects federalism, democracy and constitutional morality.
- It builds on S.R. Bommai and shows that courts will not tolerate misuse of Article 356 for political purposes.
- It clarifies that the Governor must act with care and neutrality. He cannot block a prospective government only on the basis of his own suspicion.
- It underlines that floor of the House is the proper place to test majority, not the Raj Bhavan.
- It is often cited in debates on Governor’s role, hung assemblies, and President’s Rule, making it very important for exams and public law discussions.
For students, this case is a perfect example of how the Court balances strict constitutional principles with practical political realities.
Key Takeaways (Exam Revision)
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Year: 2006
- Citation: (2006) 2 SCC 1
- Area of Law: Constitutional Law · Federalism · Article 356
- Dissolution of Bihar Assembly held unconstitutional.
- Governor’s report was based on weak, speculative material.
- Article 356 and Governor’s reports are subject to judicial review.
- Assembly was not restored because fresh elections had already begun.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Memory Hook
Mnemonic: “BIHAR FRAUD ALERT”
- B – Bihar Assembly in a hung situation.
- I – Intervening President’s Rule and suspended animation.
- H – Alleged horse-trading reported by the Governor.
- A – Assembly dissolved before first sitting.
- R – Court calls it a “fraud on the Constitution”.
- FRAUD ALERT – Reminder that Article 356 misuse will be checked by judicial review.
3-Step Hook (Story Method)
- Picture the hung House: Imagine a newly elected Bihar Assembly building with lights on, but a big board saying “No Government Yet”.
- See the “fraud” stamp: Visualise the Governor sending a shaky report, and the Supreme Court stamping it with a big red mark – “Fraud on the Constitution”.
- Two doors, one chosen: One door says “Restore Assembly”, the other says “Let Elections Proceed”. The Court walks through the second door, showing that remedy can be flexible even when the act is invalid.
IRAC Outline – Rameshwar Prasad Case
Issue
Whether the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly on the basis of the Governor’s report alleging horse-trading, before the first sitting of the House, was constitutional under Article 356, and what remedy the Court should grant if it was not.
Rule
- Article 356 – President’s Rule is an extraordinary power and is subject to judicial review.
- Governor’s report must be based on relevant, objective material, not mere suspicion.
- Principles from S.R. Bommai – majority should normally be tested on the floor of the House.
- Article 361 does not bar courts from examining the constitutional validity of actions based on the Governor’s advice.
Application
The Court examined the material placed by the Governor. It found that the report relied on opinions, fears and general allegations instead of hard evidence. The Governor effectively prevented any group from proving its majority on the floor of the House.
Using Article 356 in this way distorted the democratic process and denied elected representatives a fair chance to form a government. This went against the spirit of Bommai and the principle of constitutional morality.
Conclusion
The Proclamation dissolving the Bihar Assembly was held unconstitutional and described as a fraud on the Constitution. However, because the process of fresh elections had already started, the Court decided not to restore the old Assembly and allowed the elections to continue.
Short Glossary
President’s Rule
Situation where the Union Government takes over the functions of a State Government under
Article 356.
Suspended Animation
When an Assembly is not dissolved but cannot function normally and is kept in a waiting state.
Horse-Trading
Unethical practice of buying or pressuring legislators to change sides for forming a majority.
Constitutional Morality
The idea that all authorities must behave in a way that protects the spirit of the Constitution,
not just its bare text.
Status Quo Ante
Restoring things to the way they were earlier; in this context, bringing the dissolved Assembly back to life.
Judicial Review
Power of courts to examine whether actions of the executive or legislature are constitutional.
FAQs – Student Questions Answered
The main theme is the misuse of Article 356 and the limits of the Governor’s powers. The case deals with whether the Bihar Assembly could be dissolved on the basis of a weak report about possible horse-trading, and how far the Union can go in intervening in State politics.
No. The Court held that the dissolution was unconstitutional, but it did not restore the Assembly because the process for fresh elections had already begun and large public resources had been spent. The Court chose stability and practicality in its remedy.
S.R. Bommai established that Article 356 is subject to judicial review. In Rameshwar Prasad, the Court applied those principles and reinforced that the Governor’s report cannot be used to dissolve an Assembly on mere political suspicion. It is often seen as a follow-up and strengthening of Bommai.
The case is important for topics like federalism, Article 356, Governor’s role, judicial review and constitutional morality. It is frequently asked in essays and problem questions in LLB, LL.M, CLAT PG, judiciary and UGC NET Law exams.
The Court said that the Governor’s conduct led to a situation where no one could even attempt to form a government. Acting on speculation and blocking the democratic process was described as a “fraud on the Constitution”.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now