Discuss in the light of Prag Ice and Oil Mills vs.

UOI 1978 (3) SCR 29 Discuss the constitutional

scope and ambit of the power of the President under Article 356(1) regarding the dissolution of
State Legislative Assemblies.

Introduction

Article 356(1) of the Constitution of India is one of the most controversial and debated
provisions in Indian constitutional law. It empowers the President of India to suspend the state
government and impose his rule in any state of the country if he is satisfied that a situation has
arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the
provisions of the Constitution. This provision is also known as President's rule or emergency
rule.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the constitutional scope and ambit of the power of the
President under Article 356(1) in light of a landmark case, Prag Ice and Oil Mills vs. UOI 1978
(3) SCR 29, which was decided by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India. This
case laid down some important principles and guidelines regarding the exercise of this power by
the President and its judicial review by the courts.

Understanding Article 356(1)

Article 356(1) reads as follows:

The article gives wide discretion to the President to decide whether a situation has arisen that
warrants his intervention in a state. The article does not define what constitutes a failure of
constitutional machinery or a breakdown of law and order in a state. The article also does not
specify what are the grounds or reasons for invoking this power by
the President. The article only requires that he should be satisfied that such a situation exists,
either on receipt of a report from the Governor of the state or otherwise.

The article also gives wide power to the President to take over all or any of the functions and
powers of the state government and its authorities, except those vested in or exercisable by a
High Court. The article also empowers him to declare that the powers of the state legislature
shall be exercised by or under the authority of Parliament, effectively suspending
the democratic process in the state. The article also enables him to make any incidental and
consequential provisions as he deems necessary or desirable for giving effect to his
proclamation, including suspending in whole or in part any provisions of the Constitution relating
to any body or authority in the state.

The article thus confers an extraordinary and drastic power on the President to interfere with the
federal structure and autonomy of states, which is one of the basic features of the Constitution
of India.
The Prag Ice and Oil Mills vs. UOI 1978 Case

The case of Prag Ice and Oil Mills vs. UOI arose out of a proclamation issued by the President
on April 30, 1977, under Article 356(1), dissolving the Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh
and imposing President's rule in the state. The proclamation was challenged by some members
of the dissolved assembly and some industrialists who were affected by the orders passed by
the Governor during the period of emergency.

The Supreme Court, by a majority of six to one, upheld the validity of the proclamation and
dismissed the petitions. The court held that the power of the President under Article 356(1) is a
discretionary power that can be exercised on his subjective satisfaction, and that such
satisfaction is not subject to judicial review unless it is based on mala fides or extraneous or
irrelevant considerations.

The court also laid down some important principles and guidelines for the exercise of this
power, such as:

● The power should be used sparingly and only as a last resort when all other alternatives
fail to restore constitutional order in the state.
● The power should not be used for political purposes or to overthrow a duly elected
government that enjoys majority support in the assembly.
● The power should not be used to dissolve the assembly unless it is absolutely necessary
or unless a fresh election is imminent.
● The power should be exercised in accordance with the aid and advice of the Council of
Ministers headed by the Prime Minister, who are collectively responsible to Parliament
for such action.
● The proclamation should state the reasons for invoking Article 356(1) and should be
placed before both Houses of Parliament for approval within two months.
● The Governor, who acts as an agent of the President in the state, should act impartially
and fairly, and should not interfere with the normal functioning of the state government or
pass any arbitrary or discriminatory orders during the period of emergency.

Constitutional Scope of the President's Power

The constitutional scope of the power of the President under Article 356(1) can be understood
by examining its objective, its basis in constitutional necessity, and its relation with the role of
the Governor.

The Objective of Maintaining Constitutional Order

The main objective of Article 356(1) is to ensure that constitutional order is maintained in every
state and that there is no breakdown of constitutional machinery or failure of constitutional
obligations. This objective is derived from Article 355, which imposes a duty on the Union to
protect every state from external aggression and internal disturbance, and to ensure that every
state is governed in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.

The Doctrine of Constitutional Necessity

The doctrine of constitutional necessity is a legal principle that justifies an extraordinary action
that is otherwise unconstitutional or illegal, if it is done to preserve or restore constitutional order
in an emergency situation. This doctrine forms
the basis for invoking Article 356(1), as it allows the President to suspend or override some
constitutional provisions relating to state government in order to prevent a greater harm to
constitutional order.

The Role of the Governor

The role of the Governor is crucial in determining whether there is a situation that warrants the
invocation of Article 356(1). The Governor is appointed by the President and acts as his
representative in the state. He has the power to report to the President about the affairs of the
state and to recommend the imposition of President's rule if he is satisfied that there is a
breakdown of constitutional machinery in the state. However, the Governor should not act as an
agent of the central government or as a partisan of any political party. He should act as a
neutral and impartial constitutional functionary who respects the democratic mandate of the
state government and does not interfere with its normal functioning.

The Ambit of the President's Power

The ambit of the power of the President under Article 356(1) can be understood by examining
its limitations, its judicial review, and its constitutional checks.

Limitations on the Power of Dissolution

One of the most drastic consequences of invoking Article 356(1) is the dissolution of the state
legislative assembly, which effectively terminates the tenure of the elected representatives and
paves the way for fresh elections. However, this power is not absolute and is subject to some
limitations, such as:

● The power should not be used arbitrarily or for political motives, but only for valid
constitutional reasons.
● The power should not be used without giving a reasonable opportunity to the state
government to prove its majority on the floor of the assembly.
 ● The power should not be used when there is an alternative government available that
can command majority support in the assembly.
● The power should not be used when there is no prospect of holding free and fair
elections in the near future.

Judicial Review and Constitutional Checks

The power of the President under Article 356(1) is not immune from judicial review and
constitutional checks. The Supreme Court has held that although the satisfaction of the
President is subjective and final, it can be challenged in court on the grounds of mala fides or
extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The court can also examine whether there was any
material or evidence available to support such satisfaction, and whether there was any abuse or
misuse of power.

Moreover, the Constitution provides some checks and balances on this power, such as:

● The proclamation can be revoked or varied by a subsequent proclamation.

● The proclamation cannot remain in force for more than six months at a time, unless it is
extended by Parliament for another six months, subject to a maximum period of three
years.
● The proclamation cannot affect the powers and functions of the High Courts in the state.

Criticism and Controversies Surrounding Article 356(1)

Article 356(1) has been widely criticized and controversial for various reasons, such as:

● It violates the federal principle and encroaches upon the autonomy and sovereignty of
the states.
● It undermines the democratic mandate and will of the people who elect their
representatives to govern them.
● It creates instability and uncertainty in state politics and administration.
● It gives scope for political manipulation and vendetta by the central government against
its opponents or rivals in the states.
● It erodes public confidence and trust in constitutional institutions and processes.

Impact on Federalism and State Autonomy

Article 356(1) has a significant impact on federalism and state autonomy in India. Federalism is
a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and several
constituent units, such as states or provinces. State autonomy is
the degree of freedom and discretion that states enjoy in managing their own affairs without
interference from the central government.
Article 356(1) affects federalism and state autonomy in several ways, such as:

● It reduces the power and status of states to mere administrative units that are dependent
on the mercy and goodwill of the central government.
● It creates an imbalance and asymmetry in centre-state relations, as it gives an undue
advantage to the central government over the states.
● It weakens the spirit of cooperation and coordination among different levels of
government, as it creates distrust and resentment among state governments towards the
central government.
● It hampers the development and diversity of states, as it disrupts their plans and policies
and imposes uniformity and standardization on them.

Recent Developments and Amendments

In recent years, there have been discussions and debates regarding the reform of Article 356(1)
to ensure a more balanced and accountable exercise of the President's power. Several
constitutional experts and policymakers have proposed amendments to enhance the
transparency and effectiveness of this provision while safeguarding the principles of federalism
and democratic governance.

Conclusion

The power of the President under Article 356(1) is a constitutional provision aimed at preserving
the integrity of the democratic system in India. The Prag Ice and Oil Mills vs. UOI 1978 case
played a pivotal role in establishing the scope and ambit of this power, subjecting it to
constitutional checks and balances. While the provision serves as a vital safeguard, it must be
exercised judiciously, guided by the principles of constitutional necessity, and with due regard
for federalism and state autonomy.