which the Proclamation lasts.

[47 C-D] (20) Although Art 356(1)(a) of the Constitution imposes a bar
against the assumption by the.President of the legislative powers of the State Legislature, which
could only be transferred to Parliament, its provisions, read with Art. 357 of the Constitution, do not
operate as an absolute bar on any expenditure which could be legally incurred by the President or
under the Presidential authority in accordance with pre-existing State laws authorising expenditure
by other authorities or bodies whose powers can be taken by the President under Art. 356(1)(a). In
any case, the provisions of Art. 357 could not possibly be used as a bar against a dissolution of the
State Assembly by a Presidential Proclamation. Nor can they be used to introduce as a condition
precedent to the Presidential Proclamation under Art. 356(1)(a), involving, as it usually does, the
dissolution of the State Assembly, an approval of both or either of the two. Houses of Parliament.
[49 A-C] (21) Even if there be some grounds for making a distinction between a State's interest and
rights and those of its Government or its members, the Court need not take too restrictive or
stringent a view of the States' right to sue for any rights, actual or fancied, which the State
Government chooses to take up on behalf of the State concerned in a suit under Art. 131. [50 F-G]
State of Bihar v. Union of India and Anr., [1970] 2 S.C.R. 522; explained. United Provinces v. The
Governor General in Council, 1939 FCR 124; referred to. Per, Chandrachud J. (1) The use of the
phrase "Government of India" in Article 131(a) and (b) does not mean that one party to the dispute
has to be the Government of the day at the Centre. "Government of India" means "Union of India"
The true construction of Article 131(a) true in substance and true pragmatically is that a dispute
must arise between the Union of India and a State. [53 E-G] (2) The dispute between the Union of
India and the State cannot but be a dispute which arises out of the difference between the
Government in office at the Centre and the Government in office in the State. But, there is a further
prerequisite which narrows down the ambit of the class disputes which fall within Article 131. That
requirement is that the dispute must involve a question whether of law or fact, on which the
existence or extent of a legal right depends. it is this qualification which contains the, true guide for
determining whether a particular dispute is comprehended within Art. 131. Mere wrangles between
Governments have no place in the scheme of that Article. The purpose of Art. 131 is to afford a
forum for the resolution of disputes which depend for their decision on the existence or extent of a
legal right. It is only when a legal, not a mere political, issue arises touching upon the State Of
Rajasthan & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 6 May, 1977 Indian Kanoon -
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/174974/ 11 existence or extent of a legal right that Article 131 is
attracted. [54 A-C] 8 (3) When the Plaintiff-States by their suits directly or specifically question the
constitutional right and authority of the Union Government to issue a directive to the State
Governments commending that the Chief Ministers should tender a certain advice to their
Governors and also question the constitutional right of the Union Government to dissolve the State
Assemblies on the grounds mentioned in the Home Minister's letter to the Chief Ministers, a legal,
not a political, issue arising out of the existence and extent of a legal right squarely arises and the
suits cannot be thrown out as falling outside the purview of Art. 131. [54 D-E] (4) It is not necessary
for attracting the provisions of Art. 131 that the plaintiff must assert a legal right in itself. Art. 131
contains no such restricti India and the States sustains that locus. [54 H-55A] (6) The expression
"legal right" which occurs in Art. 131 has to be understood in its proper perspective. The legal right
of the States consists in their immunity, in the sense of freedom from the power of the Union
Government. The), are entitled under Art. 131, to assert that right either by contending in the
absolute that the Centre has no power to dissolve the Legislative Assemblies or with the qualification
that such a power cannot be exercised on the grounds stated. [55 A-D] State of Bihar v. Union of
India, [1970] 2 SCR 522; held inapplicable. (7) By the Proclamation under Art. 356(1) the Legislative
Assemblies of nine States were dissolved and the President's rule was imposed on those States. As a
result the writ petitioners ceased to be Members of the Legislative Assemblies and as a result of
their ceasing to be such members the right to salary which they could only draw if they were
members of the Assemblies came to an end. Though the petitioners could not be denied relief on
the ground that it was not intended by issuing the Proclamation to deprive them of their salary' the
writ petitions were State Of Rajasthan & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 6 May, 1977
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/174974/ 12 liable to be dismissed on the ground that
the injury to the alleged Fundamental Rights of the petitioners was too indirect and remote. [56 G-H]
(8) Whether or not, the Proclamation issued under Art. 356 of the Constitution is approved as
enjoined in Art. 356(3), it has an assured life for a period of two m