desirability or need for any action by the Union Government under Article 356of the Constitution,

such a dispute is outside the sphere of justiciable matters. If the final action or its grounds are non-
justiciable, they could not be indirectly assailed by challenging a process which may or may not
actually produce the apprehended result or action. Thirdly,the letter of the Union Home Minister
and the speech of the Union Law Minister do not indicate that anything failing outside the wide
spectrum of Article 356 of the Constitution is being or will be taken into account for taking, action
under Art. 356. Hence, on matters stated there, no cause of action could be said to have arisen.
Fourthly, mere intimation of some facts, fully within the purview of Art. 356 of the Constitution,
does not justify a prohibition to act in future when the situation may be serious enough on the
strength of facts indicated and possibly others facts also, for action under Art. 356 of the
Constitution. The freedom of constitutionally authorised executive action of the highest executive
organs of the Union should not be impeded by judicial interference except on grounds of clearest
and gravest possible character. There was nothing beyond bare possibilities before the court so that
no anticipatory injunction or order could be granted. Dismissing the suits as well as the petitions the
Court, HELD : Per Beg, C.J. (1) The choice between a dissolution and re-election or a retention of the
same membership of the Legislature or the Government for a certain period could be matters of
political expediency and strategy under a democratic system. Under our system. quest for political
power through formation of several political powers with different socioeconomic policies and
programmes and ideologies is legal. Hence, a mere attempt to get more political power for a party as
a means of pursuing the Programme of that party, as opposed to that of other parties is not
constitutionally prohibited or per se illegal. [24 F-G] (2) One purpose of our Constitution and laws is
certainly to give electors a periodic opportunity of choosin stence or nature or contents of
ministerial advice to the President, Article 356(5) makes it impossible for Courts to question the
President's satisfaction 'on any ground'. Hence Courts can only determine the validity of the action
on whatever remains for them or what is admitted on behalf of the President to be the grounds of
President's satisfaction. [25 D, 26 E-F] (4) If the Union Government thinks that the circumstances of
the situation demand that the State Governments must seek a fresh mandate to justify their moral
rights in the eyes of the people to continue to exercise power in the interests of their electors, or
else the discontent of the masses may have its repercussion not only on the law and order situation,
but will also affect legal responsibilities or duties which the Union Government has towards a
particular State or towards Indian citizens in general, an of whom live in some State or other, it
cannot be said that inent seem to be covered by the first art of the duty of the Union towards a State
mentioned in Article 355 but the second part of that duty mentioned-in Art. 355, seems to be of
somewhat different and broader character. The second part seems to cover all steps which are
 enough "to ensure" that the Government of every State is carried, "in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution". Its 'sweep seems quite wide. It is this part of the duty of the Union
towards each State which is sought to be covered by a Proclamation tinder Art. 356. That
Proclamation is not of a grave emergency. In fact. the word "emergency" is not used there. It is a
Proclamation intended either to safeguard against the failure of the constitutional machinery in a
State or to repair the defects of a breakdown. It may be either a preventive or a curative actio h has
to be nationally integrated, politically and economically co-ordinated and socially,, intellectually and
spiritually uplifted. lit such a system, the States cannot stand in the way of legitimate and
comprehensively planned development of the country in the manner directed by the Central
Government. The question of legitimacy of particular actions of the Central Government taking us in
particular directions can often be tested and determined only by the verdicts of the people at
appropriate times rather than by decisions of Courts. For this reason, they become, properly
speaking matters for political debates. rather than for legal discussion. If the special needs of our
country to have political coherence, national integration, and planned economic development of all
parts of the country, so as to build a welfare State where "Justice-Social, economic and political" are
to prevail and rapid strides are to be taken towards fulfilling the other noble aspirations act out in
the Preamble strong Central directions seem inevitable. [24 C-E] (10) Article 256 of the Constitution
covers cases where' the President may want to give directions in exercise of the executive power of
the Union to a State Government in relation to a matter covered by an existing law made by
Parliament which applies to that State. But, Art. 257(1) imposes a wider obligation upon a State to
exercise its powers in such a way as not to impede the exercise of executive power of the Union
which, as would appear from Art. 73 of the Constitution, read with Art. 248 may co