Special Reference No. 1 of 2002 (Re Gujarat Assembly Election Matter), AIR 2002 SC 87

Bench

A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court:

1. B.N. Kirpal, C.J.
2. V.N. Khare, J.
3. K.G. Balakrishnan, J.
4. Ashok Bhan, J.
5. Arijit Pasayat, J.

Facts

• The Gujarat Legislative Assembly was constituted in March 1998, and its five-year term was set to expire on March 18, 2003.
• On July 19, 2002, the Governor of Gujarat dissolved the Legislative Assembly on the advice of the Chief Minister.
• The last sitting of the dissolved Legislative Assembly was held on April 3, 2002.
• The Election Commission of India (ECI) initiated steps for holding fresh elections. However, in an order dated August 16, 2002, the ECI stated that it was not in a position to conduct elections before October 3, 2002, which was the last date within six months of the last sitting of the dissolved Assembly as per Article 174(1) of the Constitution.
• Given the uncertainty, the President of India referred three legal questions to the Supreme Court under Article 143(1) on August 19, 2002, seeking clarity on the relationship between Article 174(1) and the powers of the Election Commission under Article 324.

Issues

1. Is Article 174(1) subject to the Election Commission’s decision under Article 324 regarding the schedule of elections for the Assembly?
2. Can the Election Commission set an election schedule that would violate the six-month mandate under Article 174(1), relying on Article 356 (President’s Rule) as a remedy?
3. Is the Election Commission bound to comply with Article 174(1) by conducting elections within six months of the last sitting of the dissolved Assembly?

Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle)

• Article 174(1) does not apply to a dissolved Assembly. It only applies to an existing and functional Legislative Assembly and regulates the interval between its sessions.
• The Election Commission has exclusive authority under Article 324 to decide the schedule and timing of elections for a new Assembly.
• The ECI’s decision to delay elections does not mean that Article 356 (President’s Rule) must automatically apply. The imposition of President’s Rule is a separate constitutional process.
• No fixed period is prescribed in the Constitution for holding elections after the premature dissolution of a Legislative Assembly. However, elections should generally be held within a reasonable time.

Observations

• Article 174(1) and Article 324 operate in separate fields. While Article 174(1) ensures that a functional Assembly meets regularly, Article 324 gives the Election Commission the responsibility of conducting free and fair elections.
• The absence of a fixed timeline for elections after premature dissolution does not imply indefinite delay. The Election Commission is expected to conduct elections as soon as possible, using all available resources.
• The imposition of Article 356 (President’s Rule) cannot be used as a substitute for holding elections in a timely manner.

Decision

• The Supreme Court clarified that Article 174(1) does not impose a deadline for conducting fresh elections after dissolution.
• The Election Commission has full authority to decide the election schedule under Article 324, without being subject to Article 174(1).
• The decision of the Election Commission to delay elections beyond six months was not unconstitutional.
• The Supreme Court urged the Election Commission to ensure elections are held within a reasonable time to maintain democratic governance.

Important Terms

1. Article 143(1) (Advisory Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court)

• This article allows the President of India to seek the Supreme Court’s opinion on constitutional matters of public importance.
• In this case, the President sought clarity on the relationship between Article 174(1) and the Election Commission’s powers under Article 324.

2. Article 174(1) (Sessions of State Legislature)

• Article 174(1) states that six months shall not intervene between the last sitting of one session and the first sitting of the next session of a Legislative Assembly.
• The Supreme Court held that this applies only to an existing Assembly, not to a dissolved one.

3. Article 324 (Powers of the Election Commission)

• Article 324 grants the Election Commission exclusive authority over the conduct of elections in India.
• The Supreme Court ruled that the Election Commission is not bound by Article 174(1) when scheduling elections for a dissolved Assembly.

4. Article 356 (President’s Rule)

• Article 356 allows the President to impose central rule in a state if its government cannot function in accordance with the Constitution.
• The Supreme Court clarified that President’s Rule is not an automatic remedy if elections are delayed beyond six months.