Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006)

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court examined the Bihar Assembly’s dissolution in 2005. It said an Assembly can be dissolved under Article 174(2)(b) even before its first meeting. But, in this case, the dissolution was unconstitutional because it rested on fear and assumptions. The right way is a floor test in the House. The Governor’s acts get personal immunity, but courts can review the decision for legality and good faith.

Issues

• Can the Assembly be dissolved before its first sitting under Article 174(2)(b)?
• Was the 23 May 2005 proclamation dissolving the Bihar Assembly unconstitutional?
• If unconstitutional, should status quo ante be ordered?
• What is the scope of Article 361 immunity for the Governor?

Rules

• Due Constitution Rule: Once notified as constituted, the Assembly exists for constitutional purposes; first sitting is not a condition for existence or dissolution.
• Limited Discretion Rule: Governor’s discretion must rest on relevant and objective material, aligned with constitutional values.
• Judicial Review: Article 361 shields the person, not the decision; courts can review the material and strike down mala fide or illegal action.
• Constitutional Remedy First: Use legal remedies like the floor test and anti-defection law before taking the extreme step of dissolution.

Arguments (Appellant vs Respondent)

Judgment

The Court held that an Assembly may be dissolved under Article 174(2)(b) even before its first meeting. Still, this dissolution was unconstitutional because the Governor relied on assumptions rather than verified material. The right method is to test majority on the floor of the House. Considering the events and new elections, the Court did not restore the previous position.

Ratio Decidendi

• Dissolution before the first sitting is legally possible, but must rest on relevant, objective material.
• Governor’s decisions face judicial review; Article 361 gives personal immunity, not immunity to the decision.
• Floor test is the constitutional way to prove majority; preventive dissolution on mere apprehension is invalid.

Why It Matters

• Sets limits on the Governor’s discretion during hung Assemblies.
• Strengthens the floor test principle in Indian parliamentary practice.
• Affirms court power to review constitutional actions affecting democracy.

Key Takeaways

1. Assembly exists legally once constituted; first sitting is not a precondition.
2. Governor must rely on facts, not fears; use floor test.
3. Article 361 shields the person, not the decision from review.
4. No status quo ante when later events make it impractical.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “DISSOLVE? PROVE IT ON FLOOR.”

1. Constitute: Assembly exists once notified.
2. Confirm: Majority must be proved by floor test.
3. Check: Governor’s material must be real and relevant.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Validity of dissolving the Bihar Assembly before its first sitting; scope of Article 361; need for status quo ante.

Rule: Article 174(2)(b), limited discretion of Governor, judicial review of constitutional acts, floor test priority.

Application: Dissolution here relied on apprehension, not proof. The CM was not invited to prove majority. This breached constitutional practice and remedial hierarchy.

Conclusion: Proclamation unconstitutional; no restoration due to later developments.

Glossary

Suspended Animation

Assembly not dissolved but powers paused under President’s Rule.

Floor Test

Vote in the House to show if the government has majority support.

Proclamation

Formal order by the President to dissolve the Assembly based on Governor’s report.

FAQs

Related Cases