This article is written by Akshay Gendle and it discusses in detail the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of U. N. R. Rao vs. Indira Gandhi (1971). The article includes facts, issues, arguments, judgement and the rationale behind the judgement of the Supreme Court. It explains the issue of whether the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, are eligible to serve in their respective offices in the absence of the confidence of the House of the People.
Table of Contents
Introduction
In a Parliamentary form of Government, the President is only the nominal head of the State and the true power lies in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers. The Council of Ministers serves until they have the confidence of the House of the People.
But what happens when the House of the People is dissolved by the President? Will the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, be eligible to serve in their respective offices in the absence of the confidence of the House of the People?
This issue was addressed by the Supreme Court of India when a similar situation was faced by them in the case of U.N.R. Rao vs. Indira Gandhi (1971). The Supreme Court delved into various Articles of the Constitution to solve this issue and their interpretations are discussed in detail in this article.
Details of the case
Name of the case
U.N.A. Rao vs. Indira Gandhi
Name of the court
Supreme Court of India
Date of judgement
17 March 1971
Equivalent citations
AIR 1971 SC 1002, (1971) 3 SCC 287
Bench
Then Chief Justice A.N. Grover, Justice S.M. Sikri, Justice G.K. Mitter, Justice K.S. Hegde and Justice P. Jaganmohan Reddy.
Authored by
Justice S. M. Sikri
Names of the parties
Petitioner: U.N.A. Rao
Respondent: Smt. Indira Gandhi
Facts of the case
On 27th December 1970, the Fourth Lok Sabha was dissolved by the then President V. V. Giri on the recommendation of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This Lok Sabha was dissolved 1 year before its actual dissolution date. The Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, acknowledged that her minority Government was likely to fall as it didn’t enjoy the confidence of the House of People anymore. Therefore, she dissolved the Lok Sabha in order to carry out fresh Lok Sabha elections.
Even after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the respondent, Indira Gandhi and her Council of Ministers continued with their respective posts. Hence, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court of India to issue a writ of quo warranto against the respondent to show by what authority she was holding the office of Prime Minister of India in the absence of the Lok Sabha. The major issue and the arguments of the parties are discussed hereinafter.
Issues raised in the case
Whether the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister of India, is entitled to hold their respective offices after the dissolution of the House of People/Lok Sabha?
Arguments of the parties
Petitioner
The Petitioner raised a series of questions before the Supreme Court in his arguments. Firstly, whether Indira Gandhi and other ministers can hold their offices in the absence of Lok Sabha. His contentions were clear, according to Article 85(2) of the Constitution of India, the Prime Minister and his Council cease to hold their respective offices once the Lok Sabha is dissolved by the President of India.
Secondly, Article 75(3) says that “the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of People.” The appellant argued that how can the Council of Ministers be held accountable to the people when there is no Lok Sabha in the first place?
Lastly, the appellant argued that even if the question of void may arise in carrying out the functions of the Government of India in the absence of the Council of Ministers and the Prime Minister, the same can be addressed under Article 53(1) of the Constitution. This Article gives powers to the President to handle the executive functions of the Union Government. He can use these powers directly or through his subordinate officers. Hence, it is not essential for the respondent to hold the office, specifically in the absence of Lok Sabha.
Respondent
The respondent argued that even though the House of People was dissolved prior to its actual dissolution date, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet can continue to hold their respective offices as a ‘caretaker’. Without the Prime Minister and his Cabinet, the administration of the country would be disturbed. The respondent further argued that a similar convention is also followed in England and in the countries that follow the system of Responsible Government which was thoroughly discussed by the Supreme Court in detail in their judgement.
Laws involved in U.N.R. Rao vs. Indira Gandhi (1971)
Article 75 of the Constitution
Article 75(1), Article 75(2), and Article 75(3) of the Constitution: Other provisions as to ministers
- The President appoints the Prime Minister and then the Prime Minister recommends the President to appoint other ministers in his Cabinet.
- The ministers serve in their respective offices at the discretion of the President.
- These appointed Council of Ministers are collectively accountable to the House of the People.
Article 85 of the Constitution
Article 85(2) of the Constitution: Sessions of Parliament, prorogation and dissolution
The President may, from time to time
- Prorogue the Houses or either House;
- Dissolve the House of the People.
Article 53 of the Constitution
Article 53(1): Executive power of the Union
The President holds the executive powers of the Union Government and can exercise these powers directly or with the help of officers subordinate to him, according to the Constitution.
Judgement in U.N.R. Rao vs. Indira Gandhi (1971)
While addressing the arguments of the petitioner, the Chief Justice took note of the judgement in Ram Jawaya Kapur vs. State of Punjab (1955) that the Indian Constitution is based on the British Parliamentary system. In this system, the executive develops governmental policies for the state. Once these policies are created, the executive converts them into laws through the legislative process. The executive can exercise this function as long as they enjoy the confidence of the House of People, i.e., the legislative branch of the State.
The Executive functions include the determination of these policies as well as the implementation of them through various executive bodies given under the Constitution. Thus, the primary functions of the executive include the creation of new laws, the maintenance of law and order in the state, the promotion of the social and economic welfare of its citizens, directing foreign policy and also looking after the overall administration of the State.
In India as well as in England, the Executive is controlled by the legislature and the same can be determined by the various articles of the Indian Constitution. Article 53(1) states that the executive power of the State is vested in the President of India and Article 75(3) clarifies that there shall be a Council of Ministers headed by the Prime Minister to aid and advise the President in exercising his executive functions under the constitution. Thus, it is clear that the President is the formal head of the executive and the real power lies in the hands of the Council of Ministers.
The same structure is also reflected in States, in which the President is replaced by the Governor or the Rajpramukh who is the nominal head of that State and the real power lies with the Council of Ministers, elected by the people through elections. Thus, the Supreme Court observed that the Council of Ministers, which enjoys a majority in the Parliament, holds virtual control over the Legislature as well as the Executive. The Ministers of Cabinet act on the principle of collective responsibility and decide important questions about the various policies of the State.
While convincing the Supreme Court, the appellant cited the case law of Sanjeevi Naidu vs. State of Madras (1970). They specifically referred to Section 68C of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1939, in which a power is given to the authority and can only be exercised by that authority. The authority in this case is the State Government which includes the Governor who will exercise this function with the help of the Council of Ministers. Hence, if there is an opinion required under this Section, then it must be formulated by the concerned ministers and not by anyone else. The appellant further cited the essence of the doctrine of ministerial responsibility in the cabinet form of Government and emphasised that functions that are cited by the law to the specific authority must be rendered by them and not by other organs of the State. This is not permissible under the constitution.
However, Justice Hegde, speaking on behalf of the Supreme Court, repealed the contention of the appellant, stating that the appellant is under misconception here regarding the principles of the Indian Constitution. According to the Constitution of India, the Governor is the Constitutional head of the State and real administrative power lies in the hands of the Council of Ministers. But it is not even possible for the Council of Ministers to exercise these functions alone. Hence, the Constitution, under Article 166(3), has given power to the Governor to formulate rules for easy administration of the affairs of the State Government. The Article further gives power to the Governor to allocate these business transactions among the ministers for more convenience. Even the Council of Ministers can advise the Governor to frame rules for their convenience and easy administration. Further, the Governor can designate a particular function to an official only with the advice of the Council of Ministers. Hence, the Council is responsible for every action to the legislature and this is the essence of joint responsibility.
One of the important contentions of the appellant is to read the word ‘shall’ as ‘may’ in Article 74(1) of the Constitution. However, the Court observed that the word shall in Article 74(1) is mandatory, just like the word ‘shall’ in Article 52 of the Constitution. If we interpret as the appellant suggests, then the President would not need the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers to help and advise him on any matters. This idea of the appellant, if accepted, would completely change the basic concept of the executive given under the Constitution. Additionally, if we read the word ‘shall’ as ‘shall’ and not as ‘may’, only then do the other provisions related to the Executive under the Constitution make proper sense.
The Supreme Court further said that under Article 75(1), the Prime Minister is appointed by the President of India and then, with the help of the Prime Minister, the President appoints his Cabinet. And further, Article 75(2) says that these ministers, including the Prime Minister, enjoy their positions according to the wishes of the President. This means that the President has the power and authority to remove any Minister of the Cabinet, including the Prime Minister of India. However, in the present case, the President has not shown his desire to remove the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, from their offices, even if the House of People is dissolved by him. Hence, holding the office of Prime Minister by Smt. Indira Gandhi does not violate any law or any Constitutional provisions.
Now, the Supreme Court discussed Clause 3 of Article 75 in detail, as it was a crucial part of the arguments of the appellant. The appellant had argued that once the House of People is dissolved by the President, then the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister, should resign and vacate their respective posts. The appellant further added that, after such resignation, the Union Government shall be handled by the President with the help of administrative services. The Supreme Court stated that, as we have discussed earlier, Article 74(1) is mandatory in nature and hence the President can not exercise his executive powers independently without the aid of the Council of Ministers. The Supreme Court reiterated that Article 75(3) talks about the concept of ‘Responsible Government’ i.e., that the Council of Ministers must have the confidence of the House of People.
Further, Article 75(3) remains in effect unless and until it is dissolved under Article 85 (2)(b) of the Constitution by the President. Once the house is dissolved under Article 85 (2)(b), the Council of Ministers loses the confidence of the House of the People. The Supreme Court also said that no one has claimed that the Council of Ministers loses the confidence of the House when it is prorogued. Therefore, Article 75(3) applies as long as the House of the People is not dissolved or prorogued. The Supreme Court further added that they are not concerned about the dissolution of the House of People under Article 85(2) where it has completed its 5 year term because those situations are handled under Section 14 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, i.e., holding a fresh general election for the purposes of creating the new House of the People.
Lastly, the Supreme Court affirmed their position and their interpretation of Article 75(3) of the Constitution by stating that if we read other articles of the Constitution, they fall in harmony with our interpretation. For instance, Article 77(3) talks about the allocation of business among the ministers by the President and Article 78 talks about the duties of the Prime Minister with respect to furnishing information to the President. This Article ensures that the President of India is properly informed about the decisions of the Prime Minister of India and the Council of Ministers from time to time.
Finally, the Supreme Court in this case dismissed the petition and there was no order passed regarding the cost.
Conclusion
In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the Council of Ministers headed by Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi will continue to hold their respective offices even after the dissolution of the House of the People. The Court further added that they shall act as caretakers of the administration of the country. The judgement affirmed that the President is the nominal head of the state and cannot exercise the executive functions of the Government alone, as the true power lies in the hands of the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister elected by the People of India. The Court cited the importance of the principle of responsible government by referring to the importance of the executive’s accountability to the Lok Sabha.
After the judgement of the Supreme Court, Indira Gandhi and the Council of Ministers continued their positions as caretakers until the new general elections were held. The Fifth Lok Sabha elections were held in March 1971, in which the Indian National Congress won and Indira Gandhi was reelected as the Prime Minister of India.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the concept of joint responsibility given in the case of UNR Rao vs. Indira Gandhi?
The Supreme Court in this case discussed and reaffirmed the principle of joint responsibility under the Indian Constitution. It was further added that the principle of joint responsibility is fundamental to the functioning of the parliamentary form of government. The case held that the Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are collectively accountable to the Lok Sabha according to Article 75(3) of the Constitution.
What was the judgement of the Supreme Court in UNR Rao vs. Indira Gandhi?
In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the Council of Ministers headed by Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi will continue to hold their respective offices even after the dissolution of the House of the People. The judgement affirmed that the President is the nominal head of the state and cannot exercise the executive functions of the Government alone, as the true power lies in the hands of the Council of Ministers, including the Prime Minister elected by the People of India.
References
- DD Basu Commentary On The Constitution Of India (Book)
- M P Jain, Indian Constitutional Law (Book)
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.
