NEW DELHI: in a historic decision a nine-Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court March   unanimously uphold the dismissal of the BJP governments in Madhya Pradesh Himachal Pradesh and Rajasthan by presidential proclamations on DeC.15,1992 in The wake of the demolition of the Ram Janma bhoomi-Babri Masjid structure at Ayodhya. Delivering Judgement on petitions challenging the validity of Article 356 of the Constitution under which these Governments were dismissed and Presidents Rule imposed the Bench headed by Justice S.R-Pandian declared that secularism being the bedrock of the Constitution any act of a state to subvert this could “lawfully be deemed to give rise to a situation where the government cannot be carried on in accordance with law.” The Bench however held as unconstitutional the 1989 dismissal of the Janata Dal Government headed by S.R.Bommai in Kamataka and the Meghalaya and the Nagaland governments in January 1991 and August 1988 respectively

The Judges made it clear that they could however not direct the revival of these governments as fresh elections held during the intervening periods had led to the installation of new ministries

The strongest indictment of the policies and programmes of the BJP came from Justice K. Ramaswamy who dwelt at length on the party’s efforts to use religion in politics which was expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

Any act by a political party or government of a state in furtherance of its policies and programs to mix religion with politics is violative of not only but also Constitution” Justice Ramaswamy declared. Justifying the imposition of Presidents rule and the dissolution of the assemblies of the three states Justice Ramaswamy said when the President felt that religion had been mixed with politics by the party in power he was free to reach a satisfaction under Article 356 in accordance with law.

Earlier Justice Pandian however said he was of the firm view that the power of the President to impose Presidents rule and dis solve assemblies should be used sparingly and only when he was fully satisfied about the situation. In this Judgement Justice Ahmedi said Article 74(2) under which the Prime Minister and his Council of Ministers advice the President on the exercise of his power to impose Presidents rule was not a bar for judicial review of the decision.

Merely the fact that a political party came to power at the Center with  a majority was not sufficient reason for imposition of Presidents rule to dislodge state governments led by other parties. In his concurring Judgement Justice J.S. Verma said only objective factors like subversion of the principles of secularism and failure of constitutional machinery of the State could be used to invoke Article 356.

Article extracted from this publication >> March 25, 1994