U.N RAO vs. SMT. INDIRA GANDHI: HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION

In this case U.N RAO vs. INDIRA GANDHI, the appellant U.N RAO in his petition had prayed that writ of QUO WARRANTO be issued to the respondent i.e. SMT. INDIRA GANDHI, that her constitutional authority of holding office as to function as a Prime Minister of India is over and she no more has any authority to take any policy decisions over the nation’s welfare.
The appellant contends that as soon as the House of People is dissolved under the constitution article 85(2), Council of Ministers i.e. the Prime Minister and other Ministers cease to hold the office and automatically discharge their powers and responsibility.
As Article 75(3) provides that “the Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the House of the People (Lok Sabha)”. Once the Lok Sabha was dissolved under Article 85(2), he argued that it would not be possible for the Council of Ministers to be responsible to the Lower House. In that event, he suggested that the President could exercise the Executive Power of the Union either directly or through officers subordinate to him as provided in Article 53(1) of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court, rejecting Rao’s appeal, held that Article 74(1) – which says “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at the head to aid and advise the President in the exercise of his functions’ – is mandatory, and, therefore, the President cannot exercise the executive power without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. However, Article 75(3) must be read as meaning that it applies only when the Lok Sabha does not stand dissolved.
CONCLUSION:
The Supreme Court held that even after the dissolution of the Lok Sabha, the Council of Ministers does not cease to hold office. The provisions of Article 75(3) which envisage the doctrine of ministerial responsibility (to the Lok Sabha) has to be harmoniously construed with the provisions of Articles 74(1) and 75(2). Thus, Article 75(3) will apply only when the House does not stand dissolved or prorogued. It cannot, therefore, be said that on the dissolution of the House, the Prime Minister and other Ministers must resign or be dismissed by the President.
BY: DEVIKA SHARMA