Judicial review of orders by the president and governor - Part II | Important Acts and Laws for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

Review of the President's Rule

• The imposition of the President's rule is periodically reviewed by the Court when challenged, offering guidelines on the use of various provisions.
• In the case of T. Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P. (1985), the Supreme Court emphasized that the power to issue an ordinance is not merely executive but a legislative power.
• Justice Chandrachud highlighted that the satisfaction of the President or Governor in promulgating an ordinance is subject to judicial review to ensure it is based on relevant material and not motivated by ulterior motives.
• In the case of Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra (2001), the court held that unless the ordinance breaches constitutional safeguards, its validity cannot be questioned.

Pardoning Powers of the President

• In Maru Ram v. Union of India (1980), the Court suggested laying down guidelines to prevent arbitrary exercise of power under Article 72 for granting pardons.
• Judicial review of the pardoning power, as seen in Satpal vs State of Haryana (2000), is limited to specific grounds like the Governor's personal exercise of power and considerations beyond the scope of the law.
• In a landmark case, D.C. Wadhwa & others v. State of Bihar (1986), the Court asserted that the ordinance power is an emergency measure and must not be used for political motives.

Imposition of President's Rule

• According to Kameshwari G.'s book, the Supreme Court can annul the proclamation if found to be mala fide or based on irrelevant grounds.
• In the case of S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994), it was established that if the proclamation is not ratified by Parliament within two months, it lapses, necessitating the revival of the dissolved Assembly.

Conclusion

• The President of India and Governors of States possess wide discretionary powers outlined in the Constitution of India, intended to be exercised in good faith.
• Historically, political misuse of these powers led to judicial interventions, with courts setting precedents through various judgments to restrict and subject these powers to judicial review.
• This judicial oversight aims to prevent the abuse of legal processes, safeguarding the fundamental rights of Indian citizens.
• When these powers are used for the welfare of the people, courts may uphold the decisions. However, the judiciary, considered the "Watchdog" by the Constitution, must ensure policies are in the public interest.