Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019 was passed on August 9, 2019 and has changed the status

of the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two separate Union Territories. UT of Jammu and Kashmir with
legislative Assembly and UT of Ladakh without Legislative Assembly. A RTI request was made by a
student named Shubham Khatri to the Election Commission of India and sought clarification regarding
the status of Jammu and
Kashmir with respect to being a part of Electoral College for the election of
President. Election Commission sent a one-line reply stating that the applicant
may refer to Article 54 of the Constitution of India.
On the basis of the reply sent by the Election Commission, a petition was filed
by the UT of Jammu and Kashmir against UOI under Article 131 of the Indian
Constitution demanding membership in the electoral college for Presidential
Election under Article 54 of the Indian Constitution.
Argue on behalf of the petitioners on the following issues
A. Whether the petition is maintainable under Article 131 of the Indian
Constitution.
B. Whether elected members of the Legislative Assembly of UT of Jammu and
Kashmir a part of Electoral College under Article 54 of the Indian Constitution.
Substantiate your arguments with Constitutional Provisions, Case Laws and
basic principles of Indian Constitution.
Until the year of 2019,the former state of Jammu and Kashmir had its own constitution and thus relished
a special status under article 370 of the constitution of India. The said special status was revoked and
abolished by a presidential order known as “the constitution(application to Jammu and
Kashmir)order,2019,the earlier order of “the constitution (application to jammu and kashmir)order,1954
was thereby suspended. The order observed an extension of all the provisions of the Indian constitution
to Jammu and Kashmir and thus included them .Although the mention of the inoperative article 370
continues to remain in the textual form of the Indian constitution. The bifurcation of the former state of
Jammu and Kashmir was seen through the Jammu and Kashmir reorganization act,2019,into two distinct
union territories ,which were ,the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the union territory of
Ladakh .The present union territory of Jammu and Kashmir comprise of all the states the former state
comprised of excluding the Kargil and Leh districts which now are treated under the union territory of
Ladhak .The number of states and union territories have thus increased in the year of 2019 to 28 and 9
respectively. The order observed an extension of all the provisions of the Indian constitution to Jammu
and Kashmir and thus included them .Although the mention of the inoperative article 370 continues to
remain in the textual form of the Indian constitution. The bifurcation of the former state of Jammu and
Kashmir was seen through the Jammu and Kashmir reorganisation act,2019,into two distinct union
territories ,which were ,the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and the union territory of Ladakh .The
present union territory of Jammu and Kashmir comprise of all the states the former state comprised of
excluding the Kargil and Leh districts which now are treated under the union territory of Ladhak .The
number of states and union territories have thus increased in the year of 2019 to 28 and 9 respectively.
Article 131 holds special importance as it commands the Supreme Court to resolve and to heat matter of
disputes between two states or between the centre and the state. Article 32 of the constitution of India
grants us the right to approach the Supreme Court when individuals fundamental rights have been
violative under article 14.In the same way ,during an issue of dispute between the state government and
the union government or states and centre ,in the aforementioned case ,article 131 grants Supreme
Court jurisdiction to handle this matter of concern at hand.Article 131 provides the court with an original
and exclusive jurisdiction as it grants the power to the court to solve the dispute regarding the
presidential elections as well.The provision under article 131 of the Indian constitution states the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court which no other court enjoys .It talks about the
power the Supreme Court may hold if there is a dispute between the government of India and other
states of India or between the government of India and more than one state on one side and a few
states on the other side and also between two neighbouring states ,the issue of dispute shall consist and
raise a question on law or the facts as per the dependence of the legal rights thus involved .The
provision also states that ,the Supreme Court shall however not have jurisdiction over matters which
include the treaty ,agreement or any other instrument of peace between nations or states before the
establishments the Indian constitution.As mentioned under the provisions ,the jurisdiction is limited to
matter of dispute involving legal rights and if there exists a political conflict ,it is to be
disapproved .however the term legal right has been specified with the meaning it holds that claim of any
legal right or the vindication of the same of the government of India (centre ) or of a state ,ought to be a
constitutional right “.Article 239 of the Indian constitution provides for union territories of the
country .In the case of Rajasthan vs. union of India ,the Supreme Court has held that the provision has
not been made to clarify mere disputes between the governments and the states but it is brought into
effect when the it questions the law and the legal right associated with it is in the matter of a
dispute.The petition is maintainable under the article 131 as it suffices two of the sub clauses mentioned
under the article so stated in the constitution of India.The first clause which is sufficed is the petitioner
holds as a state as the legal provisions set for the country are accommodated in Jammu and
Kashmir ,the second provision it suffices is that the issue at hand which in the case supposed to be
Jammu and Kashmir to be a part of the electoral college under article 54 of the Indian constitution, Only
elected members of both Houses of Parliament and of the State Legislative Assemblies are members of
the Electoral College for Presidential Election, the union territory has a legislative assembly .
Whether elected members of the Legislative Assembly of UT of Jammu and Kashmir a part of Electoral
College under Article 54 of the Indian Constitution
Electoral college refers as a place and is established by the founding fathers of the Indian
constitution,often seen as a sheer compromise between electing a president by voting in congress or
electing president by the majority vote of citizens who are seen to be qualified .the process is often seen
as the one where electors are elected ,the union of electors meeting with the view of electing a
president or Vice President in addition to this the counting of electoral votes through the congress.

The process consist of 538 electors out of which for a president to be elected a total of 270 electors are
required to elect the president .

Article 54 of the constitution of India states the process of -election of president

It states that the election of the president shall be by the members of an electoral college wherein it
consists the members which are elected by the Lok sabha as well as the Rajya sabha and the provision
states the elected members of the legislative assembly .the union territories of Delhi and Pondicherry
have been included in the election of the president of India through their respective legislators under
the provisions of article 54 and 55 of the constitution ,the objective of the provisions was not to deprive
the citizens from the elections of the president .On the date of 6th March ,an rti was filed by a student
named Shubham Khatri ,a student residing in the Narela region of Delhi ,he had asked for a list of state
and union territories and their legislative assemblies which are consisted in the electoral college fpr the
election of the president ,whether or not the leyislative assembly of the union territory of jammu and
kashmir is part of the epectorL vollege for the election of president ,upon this the reply of the election
commission was “applicant may refer to article 54 “ herein the reading of the article 54,53 talks about
the elections held for the president,prior to the provisions already stated it also stresses on the
explanation of the ‘state’ wherein the legislation provides and includes the national capital territory of
Delhi and the union territory of Pondicherry to be included in the same .The whole intention behind the
insertion of the said union territories under the definition of state under the seventeenth amendment
act of 1992 ,was to not deprive the citizens to participate in the presidents election and to portray that
citizens of union territories can participate as well ,upon such prior arguments of the court while
inserting the seventeenth amendment ,the counsel pleads the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir
having a legislative assembly to be included in the electoral college .there are kinds of union
territories,one consists of uts like chindigarh,Daman ,Diu ,ladakh wherein they’re are governed under
the centre .The second comprise of Delhi and Puducherry,which have separate legislative assemblies to
represent their citizens. The counsel believes the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir falls under the
second kind as the act of reorganisation provides for an legislative assembly for the territory.The counsel
of the petitioner would now like to point out the section 13 of the Jammu and Kashmir reorganisation
act which states that ,the provisions under article 239A ,which are applicable to the territory of
Puducherry shall also in effect be applied to the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir .The electoral
college thus consists of members of the legislative assembly of the union territory of Puducherry and
thus the counsel pleads before the court the involvement of the legislative assembly of the union
territory of Jammu and Kashmir in the elections of the president.
The union territory of jammu and kashmir shall be thus included in the electoral college consisting of the
members of the legislative assembly under the article 54 of the constitution of india and as per the
article 13 of reorganization act of jammu and kashmir rightfully state that provisions contained towards
the union territory of Puducherry under the article 239A shall in turn be applied on the union territory of
jammu and kashmir as well.

Discuss the pardoning powers of the President under the Indian Constitution with relevant case laws.
“Mercy is not the subject of legal rights .It begins where legal rights ends”
-Lord diplock

The power of pardoning serves to be of impetus importance even under the judicial system .The word
pardon signifies mercy and holds the way to rectify things which have suffered a great deal of injustice
due to the the technical facts followed under the criminal law .
Pardon is termed to be a privilege or a concession which does not appear as a right but as an act of
grace which gives the authority to the body in power to make the punishment thus granted for the
specific offence a bit less severe .The act of concession widely affects the commanded punishment
towards the accused and the guilt of the accused.The act is also considered to be serving justice backed
by public policy and this is granted by the president who is also the head of the states .However the use
of the power was seen for the personal gain and benefit from those in power since the preceding history
.The huge discretionary power has been showered upon the head of the state,although over period of
time the misuse of the same has been observed as no watchdog had been set on the use of the mercy
power of the authorities .
Historical backing and the evolution of powers:
It has been observed through the preceding history of the act of mercy that the concept is more entitled
towards gaining power than balancing more to the side of justice.In the early period, justice Holmes
defined pardon power to be acts of pity and leniency by a person who tends to be in power.
Lower use due to the accordance of the petition by the Greeks:The ancient times suggested that the
Greeks held the power of clemency into the hands of the public and not the authorities in power ,but
the practice was however repudiated or much lesser in use as it came accordance with a petition to be
filed on the same by six thousand people through a secret poll.
Theory of Romans -to appease the people :During the earlier times,the roman people used the power of
clemency in order to appease people which is to mercifully grant somebody pity in order to win people’s
trust and affection .As stated in the Indian constitution is can be derived that the concept of power to
pardon had been eradicated through the British culture .
The objective behind the power to grant pardon:
Pardon power was set as it enshrined justice -enhancing ,for instance,many a times the strict provisions
of an offence might turn out to be harsh upon individuals who are guilty or are accused
wrongly ,therefore the objective of the act was to enhance justice and nothing further shall be
warranted .
However the arguments tend to be the reflection of multiple philosophies as clemency can be termed as
justice enhancing or one might observe it to be justice neutral .
The case of Kehar Singh was the grounds for the apex court to specify the grounds on which the power
can be performed,the importance of right to life and personal Liberty under article 21 was
stressed ,however while regulatory failure attributable to human weakness can not be
barred,reformative power of power of pedon has been enshrined upon in the Indian constitution.The
apex court accepted the view that the British in the earlier times used the power to prohibit the judicial
errors caused and due to some state reasons .
Pardoning power under the Indian constitution:
Under the constitution of India ,it confers the power of pardon on the president of India and the
governor of the states as per article 72 and 161 respectively.The power of pardon as enjoyed by the
monarch of the Great Britain and the president of the United States ,has been conferred to the
president and the governor both in effect and in nature .There is no time period to apply the power of
pardon upon the case ,it can however be practiced before the case or after or during the respective
case.
Pardons are classified into two kinds:
a) A full pardon tends to rub out the entire offence committed by the accused and thereby provide them
with a clean chit.
b) a conditional pardon is completed when the clause so mentioned is attained or it terminates upon the
happening of a specified event.
The power of granting pardon of the executive of the state is mentioned under the constitution in two
kinds - article 72 of the Indian constitution ,wherein the president is immuned to grant power of pardon
under the constitution- herein pardon might be granted to the offences committed under the wide
umbrella of clause ‘a’ to ‘c’ of the article 72(1)-wherein the implied punishment has been delivered by
the court martial ,wherein the case in which the offence relates against any law concerning matters at
hand which the union extends its hand to ,wherein the case is sentenced to be capital punishment.
Exception under article 72(1)(a) have been thereby mentioned stating and being qualified under article
72(2) stating that the action brought upon by a officer of the armed forces by law for the purpose of
suspending of commuting a sentence passed by a court martial shall not therefore be affected by the
powers condoned to the president under article 72(1)(a).the power of the president to commute,remit
or suspend the capital punishment under article 72(1)(c) shall not in any case affect the power of a
governor under laws and provisions currently being applied .
Article 161 of the Indian constitution,wherein the governor is immuned to grant power of pardon under
the constitution .The power assigned to the governor under this article is narrower in nature than the
one enshrined upon the president ,it thereby grants the power of pardon to the governor to suspend or
easy the punishment the accused has gained under a matter so covered by the executive powers of the
said state.
A number of factors shall be taken into consideration by the authorities at power upon which such a
power has been granted while exercising it. A judicial text has not proven that the intention of the
constitutional framers was that the council of ministers are ought to be taken advice from before
practising such a power.Under the case of Samsher singh vs. state of Punjab -in order to bear
responsibility,the advisers to the crown are set in as per a practical rule wherein House of Commons
should vote in confidence towards these advisers.As per the Indian constitution the council of ministers
are the ones upon who’s the advice the president and governor practice their power of pardon .in the
case of Maru Ram vs. the union of India ,it was stated that while the discharge ment of the power of
pardon by the president and governor take place,must however not conclude a situation on their own
but also approach the council of ministers primarily .
It might as well lead to certain situations which indicate absurdity,for instance the case of Kehar
Singh ,the assassination of Ms.Indira Gandhi ,was carried by the accused of the case to whom pardon
was enshrined,there is ought to be biased ness or a lesser part of objective is seen by the members of
party from which the former president headed there is a high risks of the advice of council of ministers
to be politically motivated and can impact the final delivery of judgments and might not complete the
objective of judicial justice .According to the case or Kuljit Singh vs. L.t.Governor of Delhi ,the apex
court stated that the discretionary power of pardon shall be exercised solely by the justice and to put
judicial limitations on it would be undesirable.In order to avoid and profit any sort of legislative debate
or issues raised against the same in the parliament ,the prime minister and the legislatures do not enjoy
such a power.Herein in the case of Maru ram it was stated that no provision or any sections ,of
provisions cannot interfere with the article 72 and article 161 .
Judicial review and the power of pardoning:-
The Supreme Court holds the opinion the orders performed by the executive under the articles 72 and
161 shall be open to limited judicial review, wherein the articles under which provisions are mentioned
are above judicial review but the manner it holds to practice the power holds the ground for judicial
review .The sovereigns acts in accordance with the provisions of article 72 and 161 are thus not
immuned from judicial reviews .Under the case of Swaran Singh vs. state of Up ,held the
remitting(providing a clean chit) by the governor ,the accused s punishment was revoked by the
Supreme Court as some facts of impetus importance were unknown to the governor when the case was
being resolved.
The Supreme Court had even asked the president to reassess and reanalyze over the previous judgment
held by him under the practice of this power wherein the president was seen to hold an extremely
arbitrary and unfair decision. Under the case of Satpal vs. state of Haryana -it repealed the order of the
governor under article 161 of the Indian i constitution who remotes the punishment of an accused
charged of murder ,the Supreme Court quashed the said decision on the basis that the governor did not
consider multiple things while considering ,which in this case was the period of sentence he has
undergone or assigned to him, herein in this case the case held that not considering material facts
before deciding the judgement is held to be irrational .The case of Jagdish BS. State of madhya prachar
stated that the power the authorities hold under article 72/161 of the Indian constitution has however
not to be practiced upon the said exercise of authority, the government is playing a role of impetus
importance in exercising the said power.
However in the case of EpuruSudhamar vs. government of Andhra Pradesh ,the court held that the
grounds for seeking judicial review under articles 72/161 are as follow ,if the order do delivered is
without the application of brain, the order is a Mala -fide ,order passed upon insensible
considerations .Thus this states that the exercise which the president and the governor follow under
article 72/161 is subject to judicial review. The pardoning power is essential and is a crucial element
even in the judiciary systems as it tends to correct the orders demanded by the court and highlights the
errors of the judiciary .The law needs a reform in order to dispose the clemency cases .There should
exist a period of time under which the authorities shall decide over a case in order to lessening the pain
and agony of the applicants and their family members.
Mohammad Afzal case-
However, the president and the governor shall practice and exercise the power of pardon without the
interference of the council of ministers upon same. The judiciary and the executive shall tend to not
interfere in the functioning of rules laid down for them and shall follow a disciplined system and the
interference from either of the body. The case of Mohammad Afzal guru in which the individual had
been granted the death sentence who was said to be guilty in the parliament attack case. The reason
why the UPA government has been delaying its judgment regarding the same is the reason he might
gain the entitlement of a martyr which in turn would aggressively impact the circumstances of Jammu
and Kashmir ,as the pardoning power has paved its way in India ,the party in power plays a crucial role
towards granting a mercy petition ,in such a case it lays the duty on the president to not misuse the
pardoning power under the pressure of political circumstances and shall free the practice of this kind of
power.
Question 6-Write short notes on the following: -
A. Review under Article 137 and Curative Petition- A second time review ,although not a matter of
right .
Curative petition can be seen as the last redressal offered by the constitutional of India after the
rejection of the plea of review or either has been used.Over the rejection or the use of the
review petition,the court can be asked to this review and revise the decision provided by
them ,this process of the filing of a curative petition,however minute and detailed work has
been conferred upon in such cases by the courts .The landmark case of Rupa Ashok hurra
vs.Ashok hurra and another (2002) ,the origin of the concept of curative petition was the
background of this case .A bench consisting of five judges of the Supreme Court held that it may
bring into light and reconsider some of its judgements in order to avoid the abuse through the
use of judicial processes as well as to heal the severe failure of justice while delivering certain
judgements.In order to achieve the above objectives ,the court has thus introduced and
conceived the concept of ‘curative petition’ by accepting the said curative petition to be filed
and by the victim and the acceptance of the same by the court,herein it is required to specify
the grounds were mentioned prior in the review petition thus have been rejected or used.

The court had stated that a curative petition can be filed on the grounds if the petitioner
establishes that the unjust done to them ,it has been violative of the principles of natural justice
and the existence of such facts which were to be ignored and not paid attention to by the
courts.The decision of the same petition if delivered in chambers of judges and it is rare to see a
case of curative petition being heard in public and in open court. Approval of a senior advocate
upon the petition filed will be a mandate and thus in the later part,it shall be passed through the
validation of three senior most judges comprising of the bench .Article 137 of the Indian
constitution was incorporated as in the interest of justice it states that subject to the laws and
provisions passed by the parliament or consisting of any rule under article 145 of the Indian
constitution,the Supreme Court can thereby review and analysis any held judgement or
declaration of order by the court,thus a curative petition is guaranteed under the provision
made of article 137 and thus there is a period of thirty days time limit for filing of a curative
petition by the petitioner .in the case of central bureau of investigation and ors. Vs. keshub
Mahindra and ors. Wherein it is evident that the limitation act of 1963 does not mention the
time period for a curative petitions to be filed ,however Supreme Court held in the case that in
accounting to no real reason being given by the petitioner to wait for a period of 14 years to file
a curative petition and thus is has been dismissed .

Such kind of a petition is filed after the final conviction by the court is ordered which is after the
review petition is dismissed and exhausted .Unless and until there exists a special request for
the plea to be heard in the open sessions of the Supreme Court it is sought by the senior judges
in closed chambers of the court.The case of Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok hurra and others dated
2002 have laid down certain principles by the Supreme Court to refer to while reviewing each
curative petition .In the case the issue was that of a matrimonial discord when if the decree of
divorce was questioned to be valid or might not be so ,while the woman took back her consent
that she agreed to during the time of divorce through mutual understanding .Thus the issue
arose before the Supreme Court whether an aggrieved person is capable of seeking review on a
judgement already held by the court even after the review petition has been exhausted .It was
held by the court that article 32 tends to invoke all the writ jurisdictions under the provisions
made by the constitution of India.A writ of certiorari is based on the examination of fulfilment of
a specific order ,if issued by a superior court upon a court of inferior nature ,however it was
observed that certiorari cannot be issued to sub courts and fortiorari cannot be issued to
 supreme courts ,Mr.Ranjit Kumar held that there should be a body to reconsider final
judgements of the Supreme Court and shall consists of senior most judges which can either be a
civil or a criminal petition.The judgement so delivered is set to be a landmark judgment in the
field of judicial scrutiny .

The Nirbhaya case:

On 19th March ,2020 ,the Supreme Court rejected the plea of curative petition filed by one
amongst the four death row convicts ,Pawan Gupta,of the brutal rape and murder case of the
Nirbhaya case of 2012,as his claim of juvenility was dismissed by the juvenile board .The plea
for curative petition was dismissed and rejected by a bench comprising of six judges headed by
Justice N.V.Ramanna ,which termed the petition to make no case.It was held by the senior
judges of the bench that the said application is dismissed as the arguments have no direction
this the petition is dismissed.

The court has held that the filed curative petition shall be more of a rare nature than a usual one
.While assessing the plea of curative petition the bench may ask the senior counsel to give its
assistance in the case.

The case of Naz foundation trust vs. Suresh Kumar koushal and others wherein honourable
justice S.A Bobade and Ashok Bhushan it might not always be of certain use to dig into the
merits of the case submitted by the bar,as the issues were found to be of a critical matter the
petition was thus placed before the Chief Justice of India .

The student believes that even a body as perfect as the legal system needs certain guidelines
and provisions upon which it can certainly rectify the decision previously held as the “to err is to
human” goes by the saying ,the courts in order to seek justice if is interrupted through the
impartial working of the system ,it has incorporated the perception of curative petition .The
provision can be seen as a mere attempt towards meeting the ends of justice .
B. Compare the methods adopted under Government of India Act 1935 and
Indian Constitution to redress Water Disputes.
Although the demand for water increases day by day, the supply for the same Is not possible to
increase.Thus by having the knowledge of the same, The water should be preserved and managed
well .India is a land of many small and large rivers it consist of 44 medium rivers Of which 14 rivers are
all interstate rivers and over 103 sub-basins of which the distribution is uneven between the states and
does the water disputes are given rise to due to the uneven distribution of the water among the states.

As our country paves its way towards evolution as majority of the population engages in the secondary
occupation by cultivating into agricultural activities as well as the growing population can be held the
reasons because of which the supply of water does not increase but the demand and does.thus The
matter of water dispute remains as the most concerning matter of today’s Era , giving rise to issues of
dispute between two states. India consist of multiple rivers which have now given rise to disharmony
amongst two states. Every state runs towards preserving as much as water as they can despite the
provisions under treaties settlements and agreements made for the specific portion of water to be
supplied to every state. Interstate water disputes in our country have achieved a higher level due to the
constant quarrel over the same concerns while the country also maintains issues of dispute with
Pakistan and Bangladesh over the utilisation of river water. Ring the early times of the british Eire it was
observed that the concerning issue of water disputes what solved bye the central government. The
central government held the jurisdiction of solving the interstate water disputes or inter-provincial
water disputes as it control the projects related to irrigation and agricultural activities.

The government of India act 1935, under this act water was under the federal list system 19,set a
precedent by paving pattern which give rise to the Constitutional legal setting in relation to the
interstate water disputes. The act stated that even when the use of the river water was a matter which
belong to the domain of the states the Centre was responsible for the regulation I’m solving of the
disputes related to river water sharing between neighbouring states and shall hence provide actions for
the same. However the provisions under the government of India act 1935 where of a blurred nature as
the duties of the Centre I am the state and the distinction of which was not clear represented the
judicial system do not have clarity regarding the same.Through the these provisions the only concerning
matter of the Centre was to solve the water disputes through treaties and settlements between
neighbouring states and was therefore not responsible for the water development in the states.An
example of the same is seen while resolving the water disputes between Punjab and Sind as the
Governor general of India appointed the Indus commission in 1941 to resolve the disputes between
both the states over over sharing of the Indus water. The principle of equitable apportionment was
applied by the forum of Indus commission to resolve the said dispute. The Constitution of India has
regulated a Ministry of agriculture and irrigation to handle the irrigation projects for the central
government, the Constitution has seen that the subject of irrigation was appointed to as the state and as
per the provisions water is therefore a state subject and the government of the state handle its
distribution control and development of the water which is seen to flow through its territories. Even
though the irrigation subject as per the provisions maintained under the Constitution of India is a state
subject yet the dominant role of the Centre is seen while settling of interstate disputes and the
allowance of various development and agriculture projects as it indirectly influences the decision of the
settlement of disputes as a federal funds or in the hands of the central government the states are
dependent upon the Centre for the funds to be allocated for various projects of irrigation. Various
boards have been assigned by the central government to regulate the functioning of projects like the
Bhakra Nangle management board, Tungabhadra control Board of Andhra Pradesh and
Karnataka ,Ganda control Board of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh etc.

There seem to be boards of states controlling and functioning over a river or a project For instance Kosi
of Bihar, Ukai and Mahi of Gujarat, Tava of Madhya Pradesh,jayakwadi and Bhima of Maharashtra etc.

For the settlement of the issues related to water dispute the Indian constitution contains all almost
identical principles and provisions as the government of India act 1935 did.Article 262 of the Indian
Constitution was adopted with the objective of increasing the irrigation projects and in order to exploit
all the Interstate rivers of their entire potential . Article 262 and the provisions under the Indian
Constitution empowers the Parliament to allow for any disagreement or concern over usage to be
adjudicated and the allocation or regulation of the waters in any dispute regarding the interstate river
dispute or River Valley and the bearing of the waters,And to bar the Supreme Court jurisdiction over
such matters of dispute.
Sections 130 to 133 of the government of India act 1935, included provisions relating to interstate
disputes upon water and any state whose interest for perpetually affected in respect of water supplies
could complain to the Governor general.Under the government of India act 1935, section 133 of the act
bars the jurisdiction of any court or Supreme Court and its interference with respect to the matters of
dispute with the river water is the subject. However according to the present constitution of India ,The
state can file a petition under article 131 of the Constitution of India and have jurisdiction over any
dispute which is subject to the provisions included in the Constitution ,disputes shall mandatorily be
between states Aanchal infringe the legal right.Under the case of Gandhi Sahitya sangh vs. UOI (2003)It
was held that matter concerning water disputes shall only be brought up by state and not individuals,
This is the final intent of the Parliament on this issue and shall not be questioned further.Although after
2012, in the Mullaperiyar dam, individuals could bring about the case in the courts as it was a matter of
life and death under article 21 of the Indian Constitution,State of Kerala wanted to raise the height of
the dam which might have caused loss of lifeUnder article 131 a larger bench of judges is required to
overturn their judgment Urine the decision of the Supreme Court went against its self and any
recommendation won’t be accepted by the Supreme Court.

In the case of state of Haryana versus State of Punjab,There was a political agreement of constructing
channels between the statesHowever Punjab government did not discharge its liability of construction,
The Punjab government contested the filing of the issue in the Supreme Court as a matter of water
dispute, However they stated that the matter at hand does not relate to the water disputeAlthough the
Punjab government argued on behalf of it being a water dispute.

Under the Constitution of India provisions made under article 239 to 242 consisted of similar
propositions as per sections 130 and 133 of the government of India act 1935 although certain
exceptions were made which were in this caseThe provisions under which Governor general was
mention was shifted to President.
Question -Electoral reforms are an indispensable part of free and fair elections in India.
Critically analyse the reforms that are needed for elections in India.
“ democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for
appointment by the corrupt few “- George Bernard Shaw

Electoral reforms in India:

Elections are termed to be essential part of a democratic government, as India has the largest
democracy in the world, true democracy can only be portrayed by holding fair and free manner of
elections Which lay the foundation of the free will of the citizen of India.The act of choosing an
individual to run a public office by the free will of people of the country under the representative
democracy.Each voter is provided with the procreation and free will to vote under the constitution of
India under article 14 read with article 326 in the form of ‘one person ,one vote’.When we highlight the
concept of electoral reforms you’re not only talking aboutThe fundamental right enforced upon them to
undergo free and fair elections but also to elect a leader whose abilities and capabilities are far more
than the one who is elected through the misdeed and loopholes of our electoral commission .It is of
impetus importance to observe free and fair elections in a democratic country like India ,where the
common public is considered self governing ,although the practical situation speaks otherwise.

Malpractices relating to unfair means of winning elections should be prohibited. The practises might
include

1.capturing of a voting booth

2.Coercion by the party goons

3.Providing the individual with money in return for a vote .

Such practices prohibits people to cast free their vote. The party elected should hold good the office of
power provided to them, as the history states there have been elections held before the period of the
former office holder had to end such a circumstance should not arise in a democratic country as it gives
rise toPolitical crisis. The process of elections was once held to be moral by the public although now it is
considered to be the epitome of scandals.The increasing role of finance in the democratic structure for
contesting of polls ,switching between political parties in power,corrupt ways and criminalisation have
lowered down the bar of our democratic structure .

While undergoing the case of public interest foundation and others vs. union of India and another,the
supreme Court commanded the Law commission to make suggestions on topics relating to law reforms
in terms of political criminalisation and severe consequences of candidates to the post filing for Persian
and affidavits and reforms for such practises.The Law commission submitted its report of 244 th report
of Disqualification under electoral malpractices in the year 2014 to the government of India.

1). Election finance-The provisions are contained under the Conduct of election rules 1961 ,the income
tax act,1961 . The Indian history has experienced that financial superiority equals to head start of
political advantage.

It is often observed that proposals regarding reforms related to funding of election campaigns are
brought up .It is well observed that money is of impetus importance when the subject matter is one such
as ‘elections’,the issue of money disturbs the process of conducting a pure elections and thus hereby
declares the field of the process to not be unbiased .The history of India has experienced candidates
buying people’s vote through the power of money by providing them with liquor ,food,gifts,schemes
etc.In the case of Kanwar Lal Gupta versus Amarnath Chawla Supreme Court has explained the standing
of money and holding electoral campaigns wherein it states that in order to hold successful electoral
campaigns money is bound to be necessity . It helps in introducing the candidate to the public more
closely and works as a asset for advertising. Advertising and other facilities through the exposure of the
candidateExpands such as holding big posters, brochures among the public, handbills helps in carrying
out a successful election campaign. It is seen to be an instrument through which a quick
communications and movements are carried out.

In the case of Ashok Shankarrao Chavan versus Madhavrao Kim Halle Kar in its 2014 decision it shed light
upon how the individual was provided with money for his/her vote, paragraph 55 of the judgement by
Supreme Court where in it states that money load is pressurised upon poor people in return for their
votes.It can be concluded that in today’s election process Controls the entire process of elections . In
order to bring in clean money and transparency of the transactions during the elections the scheme of
electoral bonds by the central government has been introduced in the year 2018, it consists of a born
holding the nature of a promissory noteWhich does not catch hold the name of the payee but is an
instrument of the bank bearer.In the case of PUCL versus union of India the Supreme Court has stated
why do while delivering its judgement that the limits upon expenditure of money under the rules of the
election are held to be useless as there is no adherence to the suggested rule by candidates.Indirect
states update subsidy is recommended and is held to be a good alternative then to complete political
party fundings is carried .

The functioning of inner party democracy :

This section deals with the regulation and functioning of Democratic parties.It can be said that
procedural democracy refers to the exercise of regular elections franchising, recurrent elections, secret
ballots, while constructive democracy can be said to allude to the internal democratic performance of
the party candidates that are supposed to represent the people. The national commission to review the
working of the Constitution stated that the introduction of new electoral reforms won’t come to effect
unless the system of political parties is reformed , It also recognises some of the areas which needed
immediate reforms, first is the structural and organisational reforms listed which include the party
cadres being recruited ,parties planing party activities ,recurrent eke actions etc .

Party structure and policy-making for establishing good democracy structures available for party.

Establishment of political parties-the need for federal programme to govern the actions of parties, as
the station ground as a national or state party, derecognition of parties. India has experienced a history
of reform proposals in which the 1999 Law commission report recommends the establishment of a body
which ensures the functioning of internal structures and in a democracy, introduction of electoral bonds
and lastly accountability in holding state funding of elections. It also recommends the insertion of
section 11 AA – I in the RPA in relation to the matters of the political parties on the grounds that a
political party cannot hold a nature of tending to be Although no express provisionOn internal
democracy had been made. Section 29 a of the RP act states the registration of participated political
party with the election commission of India it also asserts that every application off the political party
should assist with itself a copy of the party memorandumAlthough the said guidelines are silent on
selection of the candidate. In the case of Indian national Congress versus Institute of social welfare the
Supreme Court held that section 29 of the RP act or the order behind the provisions of the election
symbols 1968,Authorise the election commission of India to does not register parties under breaching of
the provisions made during the registrations .

First past the post system -Usually in a democracy followed by a government, during the elections the
candidate with the majority vote gets elected and does a party is form although it is not a mandate in
India thus India follows a first past the post system.

The objective behind implementing such a system watch to rejoin the fragmented electoral systemAnd
stabilise the government.The proposal from the Law commission of India includes a huge change in the
list system additional to the 1 past the post system and thereby dismissing parties securing a low
number on vote.The national commission to review the working of the Constitution has recommended
the adoption of alternate days voting in order to rectify the flaws in the FPTP system.

Anti -defection laws : introduction of various and large number of political parties led to increasing
defections seen in the Indian electoral landscape in January 1985 constitutions 52nd amendment bill
was introduced in the Lok Sabha, the objective of the provision under the anti-defection law was to put
end to the evil of political defections for which the incentives towards the office endangered and led to
the degradation of a democracy .Being elected through a party showing feet to words the policies and
ideologies under the memorandum of the party, the 10th schedule aims towards Rohit waiting such a
breach of faith fullness by a member who – chooses to leave a party or disagrees to the policies framed
by the party by showing unfaithfulness towards it. In the case of Rameshwar Prasad versus union of
India and others, the Supreme Court made the process of defection to be of a more difficult nature by
not considering a mass shift of political members from one party to another and the resignation of the
same to be a defection and therebyPermitting the coalition of parties according to the manner
prescribed under 10th schedule. It is recommended in order to maintain the integrity of the Speaker‘s
office that a Constitution amendment be made resting upon the powers to deal with matters regarding
disqualification under the grounds of defection with the advice of the PresidentOr the government.

Paid news and political advertising : The prevailing history of India observed that in a year period from
2011 to 2013 during the election campaigns there have been observed to be 1987 cases where in the
notice was issued in terms of paid news amongst which 1727 cases were confirmed to be of paid
news,The news houses are paid in order to portray the social activities carried out by the candidate of a
political party by whom the news houses have been paidIn order to appeal the public and cast their
vote.In the case of Ashok Chauhan versus Madhav rad kinhalkar ,the appellant did not include the
expense regarding paid news in the expenditure spent upon election campaignes .

Opinion polls : The polling agencies conduct opinion polls And disseminateThrough the electronic and
print media.In the year of 1998, when the election commission of India took an aggregate understanding
of the issue and passed a resolution on 11 January 1998 laying down – guidelines for the publication and
presentation of results of opinion polls and text polls, along with the government controlled electronic
media, in linkage with the execution of opinion polls and exit polls the earliest opportunity to regulate
opinion polls was taken.The election commission guidelines just warrant laws enacted by Parliament,
but rather an executive order that did not respect the rights under article 19(1)(a),In the case of
Rajagopala versus union of India, the 326 guidelines under the election commission which challenged
before the Supreme Court as well as the High Court of Delhi and Rajasthan.According to section 126 a of
the RPA, the conduct of exit polls as well as the publication or by way of print or electronic media and
any other form of dissemination are prohibited as a result of any exit polls during a time which the EC
can, by general order, notify in this regard. Significantly, the ban under section 126 a of the publishing of
exit polls applies to both scanning and printing of press media .
Compulsory voting :-
The mention of the provision under the concerned subject of compulsory voting has been given rise to
in the RP act and the Indian constitution under which the word is described to be of moral obligation
thus entitlement of right enshrined upon it and not just mere duty.according to the RP act, s.62 states
the right to vote and section 79(d) gives clarification over voting and refraining to do so .in the case of
PUCL vs. Union of India ,it was held by the court that the right to vote is thereby a simple and pure
statutory right conferred upon people
In the case of Lily Thomas versus speaker, Lok Sabha, 1993, 4 SCC 234 the Supreme Court held that the
option to cast a vote implies an option to practice the privilege for or against a moment or a girl, this
particular right refers option to stay impartial to the bill of compulsory voting was introduced by
B.S.Rawat in 2004- for making the process of voting compulsory for evryone and for matters connected
there with ,however the bill was defeated on the grounds of it being of coercive nature ,and not
considering the genuine circumstances of people not reaching the voting booths etc.In the year of
2009,petition filed by Atul Sarode was dismissed on the grounds that ,the recommendations made by
the petition of making the voting process compulsory and upon default of the same water and electricity
to be cut from their houses are treated as inhuman ways the Supreme Court declared.

Right to recall
Due to the emphasis here is paid on the direct democracy followed ,the rule follows that an electorate
is able to call out the representative they voted for and the observed under performance, corrupt
ways ,mismanagement and other factors ,wherein they have to sign a petition on the grounds on
reelection and once a specific number of electors vote towards the right to recall ,the formerly elected
representative has to leave the office. The objective behind Right to recall is to curb the corruption and
underperformance of representatives although the bill was held to be unnecessary by the NCRW,it can
also be seen as a threat by which the representatives work more efficiently .
By getting more people into the political process, reducing pervasive corruption, and making India a
stronger democracy, electoral reforms will render the democratic process to be more inclusive.

“Rashtriya Samanta Party” (RSP) emerged as a single largest party in 2018 general election with 300
seats out of the 545 seats in Lok Sabha. “Nyaya Evam Raksha Party” (NRP) coming second with 200 seats
and 45 seats being won by independent members. RSP formed the government being the largest party.
In 2019, Government introduced a Farmer’s Bill which basically dealt with contract farming. Mahindra
Singh, a MP from RSP was against the bill and therefore has agitated against the proposed bill. Mahindra
Singh has called for a meeting of all the MPs elected from RSP to vote against the whip issued by the
party. Out of the 300 MP’s 80 resigned from the party on the said issue. On the issue RSP expelled
Mahindra Singh from the Party. MPs from NRP has filed an application for disqualification of 80
members of RSP and Mahindra Singh on grounds of defection under the Anti Defection Law. The
Speaker accepted the application but the decision on the matter is still pending. Aggrieved by this, In
March 2020, NRP has filed a petition in the Supreme Court to disqualify the members on grounds of
defection. Decide on the following issues and substantiate with appropriate provision of the
Constitution and case laws.
A) Whether 80 MPs from RSP can be disqualified on the ground of defection.
The 52nd amendement act of 1985 contains provisions for disqualification of member of parliaments and
the state legislatures based on the grounds of defection.For inserting the provisions into the constitution
of india,four articles were amended and a new schedule was introduced which is the tenth schedule of
the indian constitution werein provisions are based for the act of anti - defection. The anti defection law
states under the 10th schedule the provisions in regards to the disqualification of member of parliament
and the state legislatures :

A member of the house is disqualified on the grounds of defection if gives up the party’s membership
voluntarily
If votes or abstains from voting in the house and contrary to the whip issued by the party leadership
upon the specific matter of concern
After resigning ,joins another political party
In such cases ,upon completion of any of the aforementioned act ,the member of parliament under
article 102(2) or the member of the legislative assembly ,under article 191(2),is disqualified and no
longer holds the position of an elected or a nominated representative under the political party .

In the recent times the issue of defection has been an extremely debatable issue .One can observe the
floor crossing of the members holding office by shifting offices in order to either tend to break the
majority of a party in order to not pass the ground test or by offering the ministers an incentive for a
better position holding post under other parties office.

The objective of the provision was to curb the unfaithful defection of members towards their
party ,although considering the legal fraternity and the demand for the position and power associated
with money has caused a havoc .
As per the provisions made under the constitution of India ,pertaining to paragraph 2(1) under the tenth
schedule of the constitution ,an member of parliament or a state legislature might face a disqualification
if the member “voluntarily gives up his/her membership of a party” ,however it is a general term which
is interpreted as “if the legislator voluntarily gives up his membership “ thus mean quoting the party
which can be through resignation of the position they hold.

Although ,the case of Ravi S.Naik vs. Union of India in the year 1994 ,for an MLA/MP to come under the
ambit of being accused under defection might not resign from their post in the political party.The
Supreme Court held that ,the provisions of paragraph 2(1)(a) states that as stated “voluntarily giving up
“ does not go hand in hand with the the term “ resigning” ,a member can voluntarily give up his
membership and yet not resign from his post as the infuriate conduct can attract defection .

Although ,solicitor general Tushar Mehta stated that right to resign is recognised to be a right
recognised by the constitution and referred a Supreme Court verdict on the same ,he stated before the
bench comprising of three judges that tendering democratic right is a democratic right as the person
wishes to go back to the electorate .He also stated while referring to a verdict of the Supreme Court
before the bench that in such a case where the member does not tend to agree with party’s ideology
and hence seeks a resignation from the membership of the party ,he/she might return to the electorate
to seek a fresh mandate .

Although by approving the disqualifications of the Karnataka MLAs ,the court has come to the
conclusion of making the terms “resignation “ and disqualification similar .

The 80 members of the political party can be held to be disqualified under the grounds of defection as
they have voluntarily given up their membership towards the party and are no longer a part of the
party’s memorandum,although the line of distinction between resignation and direction is often blurred
and shall be thus shed clarity upon so as the democratic values of certain members are not suppressed
due to the constitutional considerations followed by our courts
B) Whether Mahindra Singh can be disqualified from being a MP on the ground of defection?
The provisions under the tenth schedule of the Indian constitution relating to anti defection law
clearly state that a legislator is considered to have defected his party if he voluntarily gives up his
membership of his political party or disobeys and abstains from voting in the whip issued by the
party according to the instructions given by the party leadership .This also includes if a legislator
abstains or goes against the vote might result him into losing the membership of the party.Mahindra
Singh can be disqualified from being and holding an office of a member of parliament on the
grounds of defection as he has expressed his agitation towards the bill issued by the party
leadership .however there is a clause in the Robison that the member cannot be disqualified if prior
permission within 15 days of such a voting or abstention is given although in this case the MP didn’t
 supply a prior notice to the party leadership and hence is liable for disqualification under the
grounds of defection .

The provisions highly interfere with the members freedom of speech and expression by curbing his
dissent against party politics .there is seen to be no distinction between disent and defection. This
curbs the legislators right to vote by his conscience regarding a specific topic ,therefore under the
act of party discipline ,the parties sanction tyrannies of the party by clear exert of party leadership
dominance. rHowever under Rule 2, one can observe that the anti-defection law positions members
of the political party in rug  of compliance in conjunction with the party's rules and policies,
suppressing the right of the representative to criticize the party's bad deeds, bad policies, leaders
and bills.

C) Has the Speaker acted constitutionally in this case?

Under the provisions made the legislation does not prescribe a timeline for a disqualification plea to
be determined by the deputy speaker. Since the courts may interfere only after the presiding officer
has ruled on the matter, there is no choice for the plaintiff seeking disqualification to stay
patient before this decision is reached.   many occasions where the courts have expressed concern
about the excessive delay in determining such petitions have been observed.[10] In several
instances, this uncertainty in decision-making has ended in representatives remaining to be
members of the House who have switched sides from their political parties. There have also been
cases in which members of the opposition have been designated ministers in the government
though maintaining the membership to their political parties.
Unless it has been proved before the court that the delay before making decisions by the court has
an intent of the speaker to be biased towards any such party or the power is being misused for
personal benefits, the speaker is said to act well before his powers and not by unconstitutional
means unless proved to be the opposite. Thus it can concluded that the speaker acted
constitutionally in the case mentioned and with respect to the issue at hand.

D) Can the Supreme Court decide on the issue while it is pending with the
Speaker?
The speaker is the presiding officer of the house of parliament.Any issue regarding the disqualification
on the grounds of defection is decided by the presiding officer of the house.Primarily ,the provisions
made under the anti defection law held that the decision passesd by the speaker are held to final and no
interference of any body is sought after that.although the case of Kihoto Hollohan in the year 1993,it
was held by the supreme court that such provisions which state the decision of the speaker to be of a
final nature as unconstitutional on the grounds it challenges the jurisdiction of the courts. While
practising powers and discharging duties under the Tenth Schedule, the Speaker serves as a Tribunal and
while para 6 of the Tenth Schedule states that the decision made by the  by the Speaker is conclusive,
the decision  may be subject to judicial review on grounds of:
 mala fides
 amorality
  denial of constitutional mandate
 order passed in contempt of natural justice
it was held that the speaker shall act as a tribunal while dealing with the question under the tenth
schedule of the constitution.According to the laws set for any other teibunal ,the decision of the given is
subject to a judicial riview.
As per the provisions contained under the tenth schedule of the constitution the constitutional courts
cannot decide over disqualification under the grounds of defection under the law of the constitution
until and unless the speaker makes a final decision on the issue.Although as the aforementioned case
law of a 28 year old judgement states that the court is not barred from holding a judicial review of the
issue.
The court has tried to explain the reason for limiting the Supreme Court and high courts jurisdiction in
matters concerning disqualification on the grounds of defection is that the office which the speaker
holds id considered to be of the highest respect and esteem under the parliamentary customs.The
speaker is the institutional pivot for paving the evolution of parliamentary democracy and is declared to
be a body which is impartial towards both parties.however in the case of the Kesham meghachandra
Singh the Supreme Court had decided an outer limit of three months for the speaker to pass his decision
upon the said issue.Similarly it was held manipur assembly elections held in march 2017,to direct the
speaker to pass the decision on the said issue filed by MLA K Meghavhandra seeking disqualification of
Thiunaojamin Shyamkumar who was defected to BJP,the three judge bench held that of the speaker fails
to take a decision within the time period of four weeks,the further relief for the party is approved by the
Supreme Court.
In the petition filed while the Manipur assembly elections were on board in the year of 2017,the
petition thus filed in the high court of Manipur ,filed by MLA K Meghachandra ,with the prayer of
directing the speaker of the house to hold the final decision within a reasonable time period seeking the
disqualification of Thounaojam SHyamkumar who was defected to BJP.Manipur assembly hold the
capacity of 60 MLAs and minimum of which is 31 MLAs to hold and form a government ,in the assembly
elections congress had won 28 seats but was incompetent of completing the mark of forming a
government ,herein the BJP had won 21 MLAs wherein the congress MLA shyamkumar extended his
support towards the party and thus letting N Birendra Singh in forming a coalition
government,Shyamkumar was given a position of high rank ,the office of town planning.upon the several
appeals towards the speaker ,the congress mlas had to seek the Supreme Court. In the case of SA
Sampath Kumar against Kale Yadaiah wherein the high court was not under jurisdiction to direct the
speaker to pass the decision ,however the bench refused the argument upon the mention of the case of
Rajendra Singh Rana vs.SwamiPrasad Maurya it was the direction given that high courts are of the
jurisdiction to direct the speakers of a reasonable time within which they should rule and hence in the
case of the Manipur assembly speaker was directed and given four weeks for the same issue to be
resolved and ruled over.
Hence the supreme court can only direct the assembly speaker of a reasonable time before which it
shall rule over the issue of disqualification and thus cannot accept the petition unless the speaker passes
its final decision upon the issue.
Kurk is a Country which is federal in nature and is governed by Constitution.Constitution elaborately
provides for two levels of Government at the Central and the State level, provide for distribution of
powers between central and state government to avoid any conflict. Supremacy of Constitution is well
established principal in the Kurk. Kurk Supreme Court is the apex court which is highest adjudicatory
body. High Courts and other courts are sub-ordinate to Supreme Court. Kurk follows the Constitutional
mandate of separation of powers with limited interference provided for effective checks and balances.
President is head of the Union Executive and Governor is head of State Executive. Governor has
discretionary power to provide for a report if there is constitutional breakdown of Government in a
particular state. UKKA is a state in northern region of Kurk where upon the report provided by the
Governor, President promulgated Emergency under Article 356 of the Constitution. As the Emergency
was imposed on flimsy ground that the Government lost majority, ruling party filed case in UKKA High
Court which under its decision organized confidence motion and reverted the Emergency promulgated
by the President. Aggrieved by the decision and Judicial Over-reach, President posed certain questions
to Supreme Court of Kurk under Article 143:
1. Whether Promulgation of Emergency under Article 356 can be reviewed by
judiciary and consequently reverted? What is the law?
The president of Kurk has approached the Supreme Court of Kurk under the article 143 which states that
the president can consult the Supreme Court if it is observed by the president a question concerning law
which holds to be of impetus importance and in the interest of public and thus obtain the opinion of the
Supreme Court on the said issue wherein the president may question the Supreme Court and as it
deems fit the Supreme Court shall revert to the president.
Article 365 is one of the most criticised provisions under the constitution ,the character of the article
365 is violative of the federal character of the democracy and its principles.Although the drafters of the
constitution hoped the article shall only be used in the rarest of the rare case possible and shall remain
as a silent letter.However,when the provisions of such were made under the constitution,the article was
used in Punjab in the year 1951 wherein the ruling government was dismissed despite having a majority
in the state assembly ,the use of article has been enormous since .
Article 356(1) states that if the president is satisfied that the standing government cannot be carried in
accordance with the provisions held under the constitution upon the receipt or report he/she receives
by the governor or by themselves come to a conclusion ,then he has the power to assume the entire
functioning of the government ,the governor and any authority in the state which exercised power over
the state and declare that the functioning of that state to lie with the parliament .The provision made
under article 365 takes away the power of the high court of that state ,the promulgation of the
dissolution has to passed by both the houses of the parliament .

Governors report of receipt to the president:

Under article 163(1) ,the governor is supposed to act with the advices by the council of ministers . Under
article 163(2) ,the governor is to provide a receipt of report to the president are the discretionary
powers conferred to the governor as the seeking of council of ministers advice might not be an
alternative .

Clause 1 of the article 356 states that government of the state cannot be carried on in relation to the
provisions of the constitution of India ,while the marginal note provided for the article 356 says ,
governmental failure over constitutional mechanism.Although in the case of State of Rajasthan versus
union of India,there is an attempt at giving a wider connotation towards the statements of the line as
breakdown by the state government towards the constitutional mechanism.

The 38th amendment act of 1975 provided for the invoking of the presidents rule under article 365 and
the satisfaction of the president to be of a conclusive and final nature although the provision was
amended in the 44th amendment act of 1978 stating that the judicial review stays above the presidents
satisfaction .In the case of K.K.Aboo vs. Union of India, which was presented in the Kerala High Court the
court delivered the statement that it refuses to review the constitutionalityUnder which the article 356
was imposed. The case of rao Birender Singh vs. state of Haryana ,it was observed that the president did
not act as an executive power but under the constitutional capacity .In the case of Hanumant rao vs.
state of Andhra Pradesh ,the court held the view that the subject of presidents satisfaction is a political
issue and the court does not want to exercise over questions of political debate .Although the court in
the case of state of Rajasthan versus union of India give its opinion about the politically debated issue.
Under the case the Janata party was at par in the Centre after the 1977 elections, in the month of April
union home Minister sent out letters to 9 states asking them to advise their governance and dissolve the
legislative assembliesUnder article 174(2)b ,The court held the promulgation to go through the judicial
review on limited grounds, it stressed on the difference between satisfaction and existence of
satisfaction of the President as per the provisions made under article 361(1).

In the bommai case of 1994, Some of the following Provisions have been made under article 365:

The promulgation under article 365 is not protected from the shield of judicial review.
The satisfaction of the President must contain of material facts and relevant information and if found to
be irrelevant or extraneous in nature ,the court can struck down the promulgation.
It is up to the centre to prove the relevancy of the material upon the imposition of the presidents rule.
The courts cannot dig deep towards the correctness of the material although check if it is as per the
action taken.
If the courts have held the promulgation to be unconstitutional, the courts will reside with the power of
restoring the dismiss state government and thereby reactivate the state legislative assembly if was
dissolved or suspended.
If a new political party is to be in power at the Centre it shall not be pertain with the authority to dismiss
ministries which I previously formed by former parties.Thus it can be concluded that article 356 can be
reviewed and reverted by the judiciary if found under the exercise of malafide practices
2. Can High Court of the State organize no confidence motion. Does this act
amounts to violation of Separation of Powers principles?
A Vote of No Confidence is a procedural resolution in Lok Sabha to invoke a vote of the house, also
known as a Motion of No Confidence. No Confidence Motion can be enforced only in the Lok Sabha. A
"No Confidence Motion" by nature of which a solidarity formed due to unity  is observed in the
opposition . Secondly, the nation's gaze seems to shift towards the oversights and commissions of the
government of the day for a specific period of time. An important instrument against the Council of
Ministers (COM) in the Lok Sabha is the 'No confidence motion'. If 51% of household members vote in
favor of the "No Confidence Motion," it is approved and the government is considered to have lost a
majority and must resign from office. Either by bringing in a vote of confidence, the government has to
prove its majority in both houses or the opposing party can request the prosecution to ensure its
majority after bringing a "No Confidence Motion." Under rule 198, a "No Confidence Motion" motion
against the Government can only be passed by the Lok Sabha.

In the case of Harish Chandra Singh Rawat vs Union Of India And Another on 21 April, 2016, Under the
Uttarakhand legislature, during the elections held the outcome of which was that the INC 136 seats
while the BJP won 28 seats and BSP won two seats. The appropriation bill was factored into equation on
18th March of the year 2016.The Bharatiya Janata party spurred 26 MLAs which belonged to the party
and nine MLAs which belong to the party of INC in order to remove the ruling government of Congress
right after the appropriation Bill was passed. And eventually the MLAs tried to split the vote. Now the
state of Uttarakhand was under the President‘s rule under article 356. On the day, these protesters
MLAs shifted to Raj Bhavan and decided to offer a joint memorandum on the memo headed by the
opposing party leader referencing the way in which the Uttarakhand government voted for the
appropriation Bill and asserting that it was necessary to suspend a government led by the Congress
party. A message stating that a no-confidence motion shall be passed was sent to the CM of the state of
Uttarakhand in the Assembly. It was also claimed that the government of Uttarakhand had lost the
majority through which it won the general elections held.You’re in the Uttarakhand government was
dismissed without floor test, the governor of the state had initially ordered floor test but later imposed
presidential rule. Whenever a presidential rule is imposed in the state all the assemblies in power are
suspended animation does the question of how a no-confidence motion can be organised in a wake of
the presidential rule being imposed on the state, in order to seek remedy the case was does ordered
under the supervision of the High Court. The governor of the state of Uttarakhand and the President had
political clashes between them as a result of which on the demanding of floor test by the government
or, presidential rule was proclaimed one day prior to the governor ordering the floor test, however the
floor test was called upon, The result of the test was sealed in an envelope and has presented before the
High Court before Justice Dhyani.The result of the said floor test can be used in order to declare the
proclamation of the President rule as void ab initio.

The constitution of India adheres to the provisions made for the three separate functions and powers
between the three functioning organs of the government .the judicial powers are said to reside with the
judiciary system and there shall be no interference by the other two organs which are the executive and
the legislature .Although the court decision of the case of Harish singh vs . Union of India states that
there is the intervening of the high court in case of the matter of the floor test being conducted which is
violative of the separation of powers principle .The interference of the courts is seen on various
accounts of dispute like in the case of Anil Kumar Jha vs. union of India (2005) ,the claim of majority of
the Jharkhand assembly was issued as a question ,through claims of bribery seen through video
recording. The same was said to present before the Supreme Court.
3. What are the Grounds under which emergency can be imposed under Article
356?
The grounds on which the president rule can be imposed are-
  POLITICAL CRISIS
 INTERNAL SUBVERSION
 PHYSICAL BREAKDOWN
 NON-COMPLIANCE
 MAGNITUDE MUST BE KEPT IN MIND

Article 355 of the constitution enforces the centre to ensure the functioning of the government of each
state and is carried on in accordance to the provisions thereby mentioned in the constitution ,as
mentioned in article 355,it is the duty ensured towards the centre and thus under article 356 in case of
circumstances facing the failure of the constitution mechanism by the state government the centre
takes over .It is widely know as the presidents rule ,as well as it had been given the terms of “state
emergency or “ constitutional emergency “The case of KK Aboo vs. UOI(1965) the facts of case revolve
under as no single party in Kerala could muster the majority after the elections were held ,this
eventually qualified as a ground for the imposition of article 356.The provisions made can be can be
announced under two grounds ,the mention of which lies in two separate articles :-

Article 356: it authorises the president to issue the power under article 356 in a state if he is satisfied
that an issue where the state government has failed to act in accordance with the provisions laid down
under the constitution has arisen ,herein the president can act on the report provided by the governor
under article 163(1) or might act without the insertion of the governors report for the state
Article :365 ,wherein the state fails to follow the instructions or to comply with the centre and fails to
give effect to the advisories mentioned,the president is empowered with the right to declare that the
state government cannot be thus carried on under the provisions mentioned by the state.