Quick answer
No. In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (order of 7 October 2005, reasons on 24 January 2006), the Supreme Court held, by a 3:2 majority, that the Proclamation of 23 May 2005 dissolving the Bihar Legislative Assembly under Article 356 was unconstitutional. The Governor's report rested on no relevant, verified material; it sought to stop a party from staking a claim to form a government on the mere fear of horse-trading, and was held mala fide (made for an improper purpose). Even so, the Court did not revive the Assembly, because fresh elections were already under way.
The case
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 257 of 2005 and connected petitions, Supreme Court of India (five judges). Majority: Y.K. Sabharwal, CJI, B.N. Agrawal and Ashok Bhan, JJ (judgment by Sabharwal, CJI). Dissent on the main point: K.G. Balakrishnan and Arijit Pasayat, JJ. The February 2005 election gave no party or alliance the 122 seats needed in the 243-member House. The Assembly was kept in suspended animation under a Proclamation of 7 March 2005, and on the Governor's report of 21 May 2005 it was dissolved on 23 May 2005 without ever meeting.
What the majority held
- Dissolution before the first meeting is possible. Once the Election Commission notifies the results under Section 73 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Assembly is constituted and can be dissolved.
- This dissolution was unconstitutional. There was no relevant material, much less verified material, behind the Governor's report. The report was treated as the Governor's personal ipse dixit (bare assertion). A Governor cannot shut out a claim to form a government because of speculation that the majority may be gathered by illegal means; that stage had not been reached.
- Judicial review. Following S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), courts can examine whether the Governor's report is based on relevant material, made in good faith and duly verified. The Council of Ministers should have verified the facts before accepting the report.
- Relief moulded. Status quo ante (restoring the earlier position) was refused. By 7 October 2005 the Election Commission had notified a four-phase election, nominations had closed for the first phases and polling was fixed for 18 October 2005. In the larger public interest the election was allowed to go on.
- Article 361. The Governor has complete personal immunity and is not answerable to any court, but that immunity does not stop the Court from examining the validity of the action, including on the ground of mala fides.
Majority versus dissent
| Point | Majority (3 judges) | Dissent (2 judges) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of the 23 May 2005 Proclamation | Unconstitutional and mala fide | Petitions should fail; the Governor's view might be erroneous but was not shown to be extraneous or irrational |
| Dissolution before first sitting | Permissible in law | Agreed |
| Restoring the Assembly | Refused because of the ongoing election | Question did not arise |
After a hung verdict in a State, Farhan, the leader of a coalition, tells the Governor he will prove his majority on the floor of the House. The Governor, relying only on newspaper reports of "possible horse-trading", recommends dissolution. Under Rameshwar Prasad, such a report without verified material is open to challenge; the proper course is to let the claim be tested, and the majority judgment notes the Sarkaria Commission view that competing claims are best tested on the floor of the House.
Exam point
Rameshwar Prasad (2006, 3:2): dissolving the Bihar Assembly on mere apprehension of horse-trading was unconstitutional and mala fide, but the Court moulded relief and did not restore the Assembly because elections were already in progress.
