Bench
A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court:
- S.M. Sikri, C.J.
- G.K. Mitter, J.
- K.S. Hegde, J.
- A.N. Grover, J.
- P. Jaganmohan Reddy, J.
Facts
- After the dissolution of the Lok Sabha (House of the People) on December 27, 1970, Indira Gandhi continued as Prime Minister along with her Council of Ministers.
- The petitioner, U.N.R. Rao, filed a writ of quo warranto (a legal challenge questioning the authority by which a public office is held) against Indira Gandhi, arguing that since the House of the People was dissolved, the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers should no longer hold office.
- The main argument was based on Article 75(3), which states that the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People. Since the House had been dissolved, the petitioner claimed that the government lost its legitimacy.
- The respondent (Indira Gandhi) defended her position, stating that the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers do not cease to hold office upon dissolution of the Lok Sabha, and that the President cannot exercise executive power without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Issues
- Does the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers automatically lose office upon the dissolution of the House of the People under Article 75(3)?
- Can the President exercise executive powers without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers when the Lok Sabha is dissolved?
- Is Article 74(1) (which mandates the existence of a Council of Ministers) still applicable even after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha?
Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle)
- Article 74(1) is mandatory: The Supreme Court ruled that Article 74(1), which mandates the existence of a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President, is mandatory and remains in force even when the Lok Sabha is dissolved.
- Article 75(3) does not require immediate resignation upon dissolution: The Court clarified that Article 75(3) (which states that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of the People) only applies when the House is in session and not when it is dissolved.
- The President cannot govern alone: Since India follows a parliamentary system, the President cannot exercise executive power independently without the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- Continuity of Government: The dissolution of the Lok Sabha does not mean the end of the executive government, as general elections must be conducted, and a new Lok Sabha must be constituted.
Observations
- The Court rejected the argument that the Council of Ministers must immediately resign after the Lok Sabha’s dissolution.
- The parliamentary system in India is modeled on the British system, where the Prime Minister and Ministers continue to function until the next government is formed.
- If the petitioner’s argument were accepted, it would mean that the President could rule alone without a Council of Ministers, which is unconstitutional.
- The President is bound to act on the advice of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, even when the House of the People is dissolved.
Decision
- The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that Indira Gandhi and her Council of Ministers could continue in office even after the Lok Sabha was dissolved.
- It held that Article 75(3) does not mean that the Prime Minister must resign immediately after the House is dissolved.
- The Court reaffirmed that the executive power of the Union is exercised by the President only with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
- The continuation of the government is essential to ensure administrative stability until the new House of the People is elected.
Important Terms
1. Article 74(1) (Council of Ministers to Aid and Advise the President)
- This article states that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at its head to aid and advise the President.
- The Court ruled that this provision is mandatory and that the President cannot act without the Council of Ministers.
2. Article 75(3) (Collective Responsibility of Ministers)
- This article states that the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of the People (Lok Sabha).
- The petitioner argued that this means the Council of Ministers must resign upon dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
- The Court rejected this argument, clarifying that responsibility exists when the House is in session, but its dissolution does not require immediate resignation.
3. Writ of Quo Warranto
- A legal challenge questioning the legitimacy of a person holding a public office.
- In this case, U.N.R. Rao filed a quo warranto writ against Indira Gandhi, arguing that she had no right to continue as Prime Minister.
- The Supreme Court dismissed this writ, stating that the continuation of the Council of Ministers was constitutional.
4. Dissolution of Lok Sabha (Article 85(2))
- Article 85(2) allows the President to dissolve the Lok Sabha before its term expires.
- The Court ruled that even after dissolution, the Council of Ministers continues in office until a new government is formed.
5. Parliamentary System of Government
- India follows a parliamentary democracy, meaning that the executive (Prime Minister and Ministers) is accountable to the legislature (Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha).
- The Court held that even when the Lok Sabha is dissolved, the Prime Minister and Ministers remain in office to ensure government continuity.
