Maharashtra crisis: What was the Rameshwar Prasad case, in which the SC decided on the powers of the Governor in 2005?

The landmark ruling defines the contours of the Governor’s powers to dissolve the Assembly. What was this case, and how is it related to the Shiv Sena crisis?

The context was a hung Assembly after the state elections in Bihar in 2005

In February 2005, Bihar saw a hung Legislative Assembly, as no party or alliance could muster the required majority of 122 seats in the 243-member House.

The contenders to form the government included the NDA, then comprising the BJP and Nitish Kumar’s JD(U), which had won 92 seats, followed by Lalu Prasad’s RJD, which had won 75 seats. The late Ram Vilas Paswan’s LJP had won 29 seats, and the Congress had won 10.

After a series of meetings with political parties, then Governor Buta Singh concluded that no party or alliance was in a position to reach a majority in the Assembly, owing to the LJP’s indecisiveness about siding with either faction.

On March 6, 2005, Governor Singh wrote to then President Dr APJ Abdul Kalam, recommending President’s Rule in Bihar under Article 365, and keeping the Assembly in “suspended animation” — which meant it would not be dissolved, but it could not conduct business either.

The following day, two notifications, imposing President’s Rule on Bihar, and transferring the powers of the President to the Governor subject to his final control and superintendence, were issued.

Meanwhile, a group of 17 Independent MLAs and three smaller parties extended their support to the NDA group led by Nitish Kumar.

The 2 reports sent by the Governor to the President

The first report, dated April 27, 2005, referred to “serious attempts to cobble a majority” by winning over MLAs by “various means”, including allurements like posts and money. Warning of distortion of democracy, the report recommended that fresh elections should be held in the state.

The second report was sent a little less than a month later, on May 21, 2005. In it, the Governor recommended the dissolution of the existing Assembly and reiterated the recommendation for fresh elections, observing that the LJP had sided with the JD(U).

The Union Cabinet promptly forwarded the reports to the President for his assent, an essential requirement for the dissolution of an Assembly and conducting fresh elections. Following the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly, the JD(U) and BJP organised statewide protests and strikes.

Rameshwar Prasad, who had won the Sandesh Assembly seat in February 2005, filed a petition before the Supreme Court, along with three other MLAs in the defunct House, challenging the constitutionality of the Presidential Proclamation of May 23, 2005, and asking that the dissolution of the Assembly be struck down as “unconstitutional”. A couple of other petitions were also filed in the matter.

Meanwhile the Election Commission of India stepped in to announce fresh elections in Bihar.
With the petitions before the SC still pending, the Election Commission of India (ECI) on September 3, 2005, announced dates for fresh elections in Bihar. It announced polls in four phases between October 18 and November 19, 2005.

This created a difficult situation. The Supreme Court was yet to decide in the matter, and the outcome of the election could potentially complicate things.

The Supreme Court delivered its verdict days ahead of the scheduled elections

After six days of hearings, a Constitution Bench headed by then Chief Justice of India Y K Sabharwal delivered a shorter version of its verdict on October 7, 2005. The court struck down the President’s Proclamation dissolving the state Assembly as unconstitutional. However, the court chose not to restore the Assembly, owing to the elections that were fast approaching.

“The Governor, a high Constitutional functionary, is required to be kept out from the controversies like disqualification of members of a Legislative Assembly and, therefore, there are provisions like Article 192(2) in the Constitution providing for Governor obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission and acting according to such opinion in the constitutional scheme of things. Similar provision in so far as member of Parliament is concerned, being in Article 103(2) of the Constitution,” the SC ruled.

The court also said that it could not remain a silent spectator “watching the subversion of the Constitution”, and said that while the Governor may have been the main player, the Union Council of Ministers should have verified the facts stated in the Governor’s report before “hurriedly accepting it as a gospel truth”.

“The Governor has misled the Council of Ministers which led to aid and advice being given by the Council of Ministers to the President leading to the issue of the impugned Proclamation,” the SC observed.

The court rejected the action of the Governor as “mere pretence”, and said that the real object was to “keep away a political party from staking a claim to form the Government”.

The apex court has frowned upon the conduct of the Governor in the Maharashtra case as well

On March 15, the SC expressed concern over then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari using his powers to order a floor test, which pushed then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray to resign. The crisis in the state had arisen after a rebellion in the Shiv Sena in June 2022, with the majority of MLAs going over to the faction led by current Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.

During the proceedings, a five-judge Bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud enquired whether the Governor could intervene by calling for a floor test in case of internal dissatisfaction within a party.

When SG Mehta referred to the 2005 ruling in Rameshwar Prasad’s case, Justice P S Narasimha, who was part of the Bench, pointed out that in Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India, the government was never formed — however, in the present situation, the government in Maharashtra had been there for more than three-and-a-half years.

This also prompted the CJI to distinguish between the decision in Rameshwar Prasad and the present case. “The Governor cannot refuse the formation of a new government and override the majority because of his subjective assessment. This is a government which is legitimately formed,” he said.