Case: Constitutional Validity of President’s Proclamation and Governor’s Recommendation

Facts of the Case:

• Following the State Assembly elections, no single party was able to secure enough seats to form a government.
• Fearing potential horse-trading and instability, the Governor recommended the dissolution of the Assembly.
• Upon receiving this recommendation, the Central Government advised the President to issue a proclamation under Article 356, resulting in the dissolution of the Assembly.

Issue in the Case:

• Is the President’s proclamation under Article 356 and the Governor’s recommendation for Assembly dissolution constitutionally valid?

Principle:

• Article 356 of the Indian Constitution empowers the President to issue a proclamation if satisfied that the State government cannot function in accordance with constitutional provisions.
• The term “satisfaction” in Article 356 refers to the satisfaction of the cabinet, not merely the personal satisfaction of the Governor.
• The President’s satisfaction can be challenged on grounds of bad faith or reliance on extraneous and irrelevant factors.

Judgement:

• In the landmark case of S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (AIR 1994 SC 1918), the Supreme Court held that proclamations issued under Article 356 are subject to judicial scrutiny.
• The Court can examine whether the reasons provided for issuing the proclamation have a rational nexus with the satisfaction required under Article 356.
• Therefore, while the President’s proclamation and Governor’s recommendation are not immune from judicial review, they must be based on valid reasons and constitutional principles.

Based on the precedent set in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, the President’s proclamation and Governor’s recommendation for Assembly dissolution are subject to judicial scrutiny. The constitutional validity of these actions would depend on whether they were based on legitimate reasons and had a rational nexus with the requirements of Article 356.