U. N. R. RAO V. INDIRA GANDHI 1990 Supp SCC 545

 N. R. RAO V. INDIRA GANDHI 1990 Supp SCC 545

 

FACTS

In this case, a dispute arose between Indira Gandhi, the then Prime Minister, and Morarji Desai in 1969 and 1970. This dispute led to a recommendation from Indira Gandhi to dissolve the Lok Sabha and her subsequent request to continue as Prime Minister. In response, U.N. Rao, an advocate from Madras, filed a writ of quo warranto before the Madras High Court, seeking a declaration that the Prime Minister had no constitutional authority to hold office and function as Prime Minister. The Madras High Court dismissed Rao's petition, leading him to appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging Indira Gandhi's continuation as Prime Minister following the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.

 

ISSUES:

• whether the Council of Ministers could continue to function after the dissolution of the Legislature or the resignation of a Council of Ministers.

 

JUDGEMENT:

• The Supreme Court, in its judgment, rejected the petitioner's argument and upheld the practice of the Council of Ministers continuing to function after the dissolution of the Legislature. The Court explained that this convention and concept of collective responsibility were borrowed from English law, where even when Parliament is dissolved, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet persist as "caretakers" to ensure the continued administration of the country and to avoid a power vacuum.
• The Court emphasized that the collective responsibility of the Cabinet to the House of the People (Lok Sabha) existed only when the House was not dissolved or prorogued. Article 74(1) of the Indian Constitution was deemed mandatory, stating that there shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the helm to aid and advise the President in the exercise of their functions.
• Furthermore, the Court held that the word "shall" in Article 74(1) should be interpreted as mandatory, and it equated this provision with Article 52, which mandates the presence of a President of India. The Court underlined that the Constituent Assembly had not chosen a Presidential System of Government for India, and Article 75(2) specified that Ministers held office at the pleasure of the President
• In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the convention of the Council of Ministers continuing to function after the dissolution of the Legislature and affirmed the mandatory nature of Article 74(1) of the Indian Constitution.