Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc.

Etc on 6 May, 1977

Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1361, 1978 SCR (1) 1 Author: M H Beg Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah
(Cj), Chandrachud, Y.V., Bhagwati, P.N., Goswami, P.K. & Gupta, A.C., Fazalali, S.M. & Untwalia, N.L.
PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1977 BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) BENCH: BEG, M.
HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BHAGWATI, P.N. GOSWAMI, P.K. GUPTA, A.C. UNTWALIA,
N.L. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA CITATION: 1977 AIR 1361 1978 SCR (1) 1 1977 SCC (3) 592 CITATOR
INFO : D 1978 SC 68 (38,63,143,150,158,196,198,201 RF 1978 SC 499 (14) RF 1979 SC 478 (76,124)
RF 1980 SC 653 (11) RF 1980 SC1789 (104) R 1981 SC2138 (4) R 1982 SC 149 (60,618,981) O 1982 SC
710 (25,27) R 1984 SC1675 (10) D 1985 SC1416 (142) E&R 1987 SC 331 (35,36)

Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 6 May, 1977
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1361, 1978 SCR (1) 1 Author: M H Beg Bench: Beg, M. Hameedullah
(Cj), Chandrachud, Y.V., Bhagwati, P.N., Goswami, P.K. & Gupta, A.C., Fazalali, S.M. & Untwalia, N.L.
PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/05/1977 BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) BENCH: BEG, M.
HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BHAGWATI, P.N. GOSWAMI, P.K. GUPTA, A.C. UNTWALIA,
N.L. FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA CITATION: 1977 AIR 1361 1978 SCR (1) 1 1977 SCC (3) 592 CITATOR
INFO : D 1978 SC 68 (38,63,143,150,158,196,198,201 RF 1978 SC 499 (14) RF 1979 SC 478 (76,124)
RF 1980 SC 653 (11) RF 1980 SC1789 (104) R 1981 SC2138 (4) R 1982 SC 149 (60,618,981) O 1982 SC
710 (25,27) R 1984 SC1675 (10) D 1985 SC1416 (142) E&R 1987 SC 331 (35,36)

All India Radio, Shri Shanti Bhushan, Minister of Law, Justice and Company Affairs said that "a clear
case had been made out for the dissolution of the Assemblies in the nine congress-ruled states and
holding of fresh elections" since "a serious doubt has been cast on their enjoying the people's
confidence, their party having been rejected in the recent Lek Sabha elections." A report of the said
interview appeared in various newspapers including the "Statesman" of the 23rd April. The
correctness of the State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 6 May, 1977 Indian
Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/174974/ 3 report is not disputed. The six plaintiff-States,
namely, the State of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Bihar, Himachal Pradesh and Orissa filed
suits in this court praying for a declaration that the letter of the Home Minister was illegal, and ultra
vires of the Constitution and not binding on the plaintiffs and prayed for an interim injunction
restraining the Central Government from resorting to Art. 356 of the Constitution. A permanent
injunction was also sought for by the plaintiffs in order to restrain the Central Government
permanently from taking any step to dissolve the Assemblies until the fixed period of six years was
 over. Some of the Members of the Legislative Assembly of Punjab had also filed a writ petition
complaining of violation of their fundamental tights and prayed for similar injunctions. The principal
common submissions on behalf of the plaintiffs as well as the petitioners were :- Firstly, that the
letter dated 18th April 1977 discloses the sole ground of an impending proclamation under Article
356 of the Constitution to be followed by a dissolution of

lies upon the grounds given in the letter, is prima facie outside the purview of Art. 356 of the
Constitution and would be destructive of the federal structure. Secondly, that, in any case, the
condition precedent to the dissolution of the State Assembly is a ratification by both Houses of
Parliament of the Presidential action under Art. 356 so that no dissolution at any rate of a Legislative
Assembly can 'take place without ascertaining the wishes of both the Houses of Parliament. 3
Thirdly, that the grounds given, being outside the constitutionally authorised purpose and
objectives, the proposed action on the face of it is mala fide and unconstitutional. 'Me respondents'
reply in defence are :- Firstly, that on allegations made in the plaints no suit could fall within the
purview of Art. 131 of the Constitution which is meant for grievances of States a