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.