Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India
Rule established
A Governor's report founding action under Article 356 cannot rest on surmise, conjecture or apprehension. He is not a constitutional guardian of political morality, and post-election realignment among parties is not by itself illegitimate. Dissolution of an Assembly on such a report is unconstitutional.
Facts
- A general election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly returned no party or pre-election alliance with a majority.
- The Assembly was duly constituted but was never summoned, and was kept in suspended animation.
- The Governor sent reports to the President stating that parties and individual legislators were attempting to win over members by allurement and other unfair means, and that a government formed in such circumstances would not represent the will of the electorate.
- On the strength of those reports, a Proclamation was issued dissolving the Assembly before it had held a single sitting.
- The reports did not identify material establishing the alleged inducements, resting instead on the Governor's assessment of the political situation.
- Petitioners challenged the Proclamation, and by the time the matter was decided fresh elections had already been held.
Issue
- Whether an Assembly that has never met may be dissolved under Art.356; and whether a Governor's report resting on apprehension of defection or of inducement can support the President's satisfaction.
Held
- The Proclamation, in so far as it dissolved the Assembly, was unconstitutional. A Governor's report must be founded on material and cannot proceed on surmise, conjecture or apprehension. The Court held that the Governor had assumed a role the Constitution does not give him, that of judging the morality of political alignments, and observed that the remedy for defection lies in the Tenth Schedule and not in Art.356. Post-election adjustments among parties and legislators, including the formation of a government by a coalition assembled after the poll, are a normal feature of parliamentary politics and are not unlawful. The Court reiterated the principle in S R Bommai that the material on which the satisfaction rests may be examined. As to relief, since fresh elections had already been held by the date of judgment, the Court declined to restore the dissolved Assembly and granted a declaration instead.
Ratio Decidendi
Article 356 is an exceptional power directed to a failure of constitutional machinery, not to the quality of the politics of a State. A report which discloses no material discloses no failure, and a satisfaction reached on such a report is a satisfaction reached on nothing. The Governor's constitutional function is to facilitate the formation of a government commanding the confidence of the House, and where the House has not even met that function has not been attempted, let alone exhausted.
How to use it in an exam
- Cite it for the proposition that a Governor's report must rest on material and not on apprehension, and for the corollary that the Governor is not a guardian of political morality.
- The most quotable point is that the remedy for defection is the Tenth Schedule, so an apprehension of defection cannot found action under Art.356.
- Use it with S R Bommai v Union of India 1994 to complete the answer on Art.356: Bommai supplies the floor test, the standard of review and the bar on dissolution before parliamentary approval, and this case applies them where the Assembly has never met.
- Note the important remedial lesson: the Court can declare a Proclamation unconstitutional but cannot always undo it, so a petitioner must move quickly and seek interim relief against fresh elections.
- Read with Nabam Rebia v Deputy Speaker 2016 on the general narrowing of the Governor's discretion, and with the Sarkaria and Punchhi Commission recommendations that a Governor's report be a speaking document disclosing the material.
Source
Source: (2006) 2 SCC 1; AIR 2006 SC 980; Constitution Bench of five Judges; leading authority on the material required for a Governor's report under Art.356; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.