Category: Emergency Powers

ISSUE:

Whether the removal of a Governor by the President of India under Article 156(1) of the Constitution is subject to judicial review and whether there are limitations on the exercise of this power?

Can it be challenged on grounds of arbitrariness and violation of constitutional principles?

RULE:

Doctrine of Pleasure: The court examined the "doctrine of pleasure," which allows the President to remove Governors at will, but clarified that this power is not absolute and must adhere to principles of constitutionalism.

Judicial Review: The removal of a Governor is subject to judicial review, meaning that courts can evaluate whether the removal was justified and not arbitrary or capricious.

Protection Against Arbitrary Actions: By affirming that removals could be challenged in court, the ruling provided a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the executive, ensuring accountability in governance.

Legislative Intent: The court interpreted legislative provisions to ensure that the removal of Governors aligns with their intended constitutional functions, rather than being influenced by political motives.

ISSUE:

Whether an order made under Article 359(1) can be considered a 'law' within the meaning of Article 13(2) and can it be tested against the fundamental rights it suspends, particularly Articles 14, 21, and 22?

Must grounds for detention required under Article 22(5) still be provided after the suspension of Article 22?

Did the detention order comply with the procedural requirements set forth in Article 166 of the Constitution?

Whether the arrest of the petitioner under the r. 30(1)(b) of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 was legal and valid?

RULE:

Principle of Habeas Corpus: The court dealt with petitions seeking a writ of habeas corpus. This principle ensures the right to challenge unlawful detention. The petitioners argued that their detention was illegal as they were not given an opportunity to represent their case before the reviewing authority.

Doctrine of Non-Arbitrariness: The suspension of fundamental rights is conditioned on the necessity for national security and cannot be used arbitrarily or without justification.

Harmonious Construction of Constitutional Provisions: The court applies the principle of harmonious construction to interpret Articles 359 and 13(2), concluding that an order under Article 359 suspending fundamental rights cannot be challenged under the same rights.

Principle of Legislative Supremacy: The court recognised that the President's order under Article 359 is an exercise of legislative power during an emergency. While such powers are broad, they are not unlimited.

ISSUE:

Whether the Governor's decision to reschedule the Assembly session was constitutional?

Whether the Speaker's act of disqualifying MLAs when a motion for his impeachment was pending before the house was constitutional.

RULE:

Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy: The court emphasized that all actions taken within the legislative framework must adhere to the Constitution, reinforcing that no authority, including the Governor, is above constitutional mandates.

Principle of Legislative Procedure and Parliamentary Sovereignty: The court held that the removal of the Speaker must follow established parliamentary procedures. The failure to adhere to these procedures in Nabam Rebia’s removal was deemed unconstitutional.

Judicial Review of Legislative Actions: The court recognized its authority to review legislative actions, particularly those involving constitutional validity, ensuring that the actions of the Governor and Speaker conformed to constitutional norms and protections for minority rights within the legislature.

Anti-defection law: The court ruled that the Speaker's disqualification of MLAs, while a motion for impeachment was pending, constituted an attempt to undermine the democratic process. This highlighted the need for adherence to anti-defection principles, ensuring that disqualification is not used as a tool for political maneuvering

ISSUE:

Assembly can be dissolved under Article 174(2)(b) before its first meeting.

The proclamation dated 23rd May 2005 dissolving the Bihar Assembly is unconstitutional.

Despite unconstitutionality, status quo ante to restore Assembly not ordered due to facts and circumstances of the case.

Governor cannot assume judicial powers to conclude there would be violation of anti-defection law and use it as reason for recommending dissolution.

Courts can review and strike down actions under Article 356 if found unconstitutional.

The judgment stressed the need of proving majority on the floor of the house as the proper method to test a government's strength, rather than the Governor's subjective assessment.

The court highlighted the need for constitutional functionaries to act within the bounds of constitutional morality and democratic principles.

RULE:

Rule of Due Constitution: Once an assembly is deemed to be constituted through election notification, it has legal existence for all constitutional purposes including dissolution, and there is no requirement of first sitting for its constitutional existence.

Rule of Limited Discretion: Governor's powers are not absolute and must be exercised based on objective, relevant material rather than mere assumptions or apprehensions - decisions must align with constitutional values and democratic principles.

Judicial Review: While Article 361 provides immunity to Governor from court proceedings, their actions/decisions are subject to judicial review to examine if they were based on relevant material or were mala fide in exercise of constitutional powers.

Constitutional Remedy Doctrine: Constitutional remedies (like anti-defection laws) must be allowed to operate before taking extreme measures like dissolution - preventive dissolution based on mere apprehension of defection is unconstitutional.

ISSUE:

Does a presidential order suspending rights during an emergency prevent challenging the factual basis of a detention order?

Whether the service of an order of detention to the appellant is valid when already a person is in custody?

Whether the plea of mala fide raised by the appellant will be acceptable?

RULE:

Even during a state of emergency, a person has the right to challenge the factual basis of a detention order issued under the Preventive Detention Act. This right is not suspended by a presidential order issued under Article 359(1) of the Indian Constitution.

The right to personal liberty is fundamental and distinct from the remedy available to enforce it. Suspending the right to enforce the right to liberty (Article 21) does not extinguish the right to challenge the legality of the detention itself.

There is a difference between suspension of fundamental rights and suspension of enforceability. In the case of the right to move to the Court for enforcement, which is suspended, the rights still remain alive theoretically.

A person cannot be served an order of detention when he is already in jail due to pending criminal proceedings against him in an alleged offense.