the indian supreme court held that the dissolution of bihar assembly was a constitutional which feature of democracy is protected ???
Answers
Hii Mate's,...
The detailed judgment of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Prasad And Others v. Union of India on January 24, 2006 holding the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly as illegal and unconstitutional has enunciated far-reaching constitutional principles and will have wide ramifications. Although the Court held the dissolution unconstitutional it did not direct status quo ante and the revival of the assembly. Earlier, in an interim order delivered on the 7th October 2005, the Bench had, even while finding the dissolution unconstitutional, expressed its inability to restore the dissolved Assembly in view of the electoral process under way then to constitute a new Assembly.
The present case was the first of its kind where even before the first meeting of the Legislative Assembly its dissolution had been ordered on the ground that attempts were being made to cobble together a majority by illegal means and to lay claim to form the government in the State. So, the main question before the Court at the outset was whether the dissolution of the Assembly under Article 356(1) of the Constitution could be ordered on the said ground. Linked with this question was the correctness of the dissolution even before the Assembly met for the first time after its due constitution and the members took oath. The majority while agreeing with the contentions of the petitioners held that no such power has been vested with the governor. Such a power would be against the democratic principles of the majority rule. If such a power is vested in the governor and/or the president, the consequences can be horrendous and would open a floodgate of dissolutions and will have far reaching alarming and dangerous consequences. It may also be a handle to reject post-election alignments and realignments on the ground of same being unethical, plunging the country or the state into another election. It further held that there was no material, let alone relevant, with the governor to recommend dissolution and the drastic and extreme action of dissolution cannot be justified on mere ipse dixit, suspicion, whims and fancies of the governor.
If it helps please mark me in Brainleist...
(◕‿◕)☺☺
Answer:
The correct answer of this question is the detailed judgment of the Supreme Court in Rameshwar Prasad And Others v. Union of India on January 24, 2006 holding the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly as illegal and unconstitutional has enunciated far-reaching constitutional principles and will have wide ramifications.
Explanation:
Given - The indian supreme court held that the dissolution of bihar assembly was a constitutional .
To Find - Write the indian supreme court which is held that the dissolution of bihar assembly was a constitutional and which feature of democracy is protected.
The Supreme Court's lengthy ruling in Rameshwar Prasad and Others v. Union of India, which declared the dissolution of the Bihar Assembly to be illegal and unconstitutional on January 24, 2006, enunciated far-reaching constitutional concepts and will have far-reaching repercussions. Despite the fact that the Court ruled the dissolution unlawful, it did not order a return to the status quo ante or the re-establishment of the assembly. Even though the dissolution was illegal, the Bench indicated its inability to restore the dissolved Assembly in an interim decision issued on October 7, 2005, owing to the electoral process that was underway at the time to elect a new Assembly.
The current case was the first of its kind, in which the Legislative Assembly was disbanded even before the first meeting on the grounds that illegitimate measures were being used to cobble together a majority and lay claim to form the state government. The major question before the Court at the outset was whether the Assembly may be dissolved under Article 356(1) of the Constitution on that basis. The correctness of the dissolution even before the Assembly met for the first time after its proper constitution and the members swore oath was linked to this question.
It could also be used to reject post-election realignments and alignments on the grounds that they are unethical, resulting in a new election in the country or state. It was also decided that the governor had no material, let alone relevant, with which to advocate dissolution, and that the dramatic and extreme action of dissolution could not be justified only on the basis of ipse dixit, suspicion, or the governor's whims and fancies.
#SPJ2