Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
GOVERNOR’S ROLE IN DISSOLUTION OF STATE ASSEMBLIES (Constitutional…
GOVERNOR’S ROLE IN DISSOLUTION OF STATE ASSEMBLIES
Constitutional provisions
Article 172 says that every Legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for
five years.
Article 174 (2) (b) of the Indian Constitution merely states that the Governor may, from time to time,
dissolve the Legislative Assembly
Article 356 (“President’s rule”): In case of failure of constitutional machinery in State the President, on
receipt of report from the Governor of the State or otherwise
may assume to himself the functions of the Government of the State
declare that the powers of the Legislature of the State shall be exercisable by or under the authority
of Parliament
Issues related to Dissolution Powers
Lack of Objective Criteria for untimely dissolution
Political reasons being cited for Dissolution
Missing Political Neutrality in Governor’s Office
Suggestions
Sarkaria Commission
state assembly should not be dissolved unless the proclamation is approved by the parliament
Sparing use of article 356 of the constitution should be made
All possibilities of formation of an alternative government must be explored before imposing
presidential rule in the state
M M Punchhi Commission
The governor should follow “constitutional conventions” in a case of a hung Assembly
It suggested a provision of ‘Localized Emergency’ by which the central government can tackle issue
at town/district level without dissolving the state legislative assembly
Supreme Court Judgements:
Bommai case of 1994:
The court accorded primacy to a floor test as a check of majority.
court also said that the power under Article 356 is extraordinary and must be used wisely
and not for political gain
Rameshwar Prasad case (2006)
Bihar Governor’s recommendation for dissolving the Assembly the previous year was held to be
illegal and mala fide
A Governor cannot shut out post-poll alliances altogether as one of the ways in which a popular
government may be formed.
The court had also said unsubstantiated claims of horse-trading or corruption in efforts at
government formation cannot be cited as reasons to dissolve the Assembly