That was made an issue in its manifesto for the elections to the legislative assemblies.
On July 28, 1988, 13 out of the 34 MLAs of the ruling Congress I Party informed the Speaker of the Assembly that they had formed a party separate from Congress I ruling party and requested him for allotment of separate seats for them in the House.
On the next day, i.e., April 20, 1989, 7 out of the 19 legislators who had allegedly written the said letters to the Governor sent letters to him companyplaining that their signatures were obtained on the earlier letters by misrepresentation and affirmed their support to the Ministry.
If he so acts, the scope and width of the exercise of the power and parameters of judicial review, by this Court, as sentinel on the qui vive, under Article 32 or Article 136 or High Court under Article 226 to companysider the satisfaction, reached by the President under Article 356 when the actions of one State Government found seismic vibrations in other States governed by the same political party, in the language of S Shri Parasaran and P.P. Rao, learned Senior Counsel, companymon thread rule are also liable to be brought under the President Rule need to be critically examined arid decided for successful working of the democratic institutions set up by the suprema lex.
On the next day, he presented to the Governor 19 letters allegedly signed by 17 Janata Dal legislators, one independent but associate legislator and one legislator belonging to the Bhartiya Janata Party which was supporting the Ministry, withdrawing their support to the Ministry.
All the three Governments were faithfully implementing all the Central and State laws.
The writ petition challenging the Proclamations in respect of Madhya Pradesh Government and the Legislative Assembly was allowed by the High Court and the appeal against the decision of the High Court is preferred in this Court by the Union of India.
One of the programmes of the BJP was to companystruct a temple for Lord Sri Rama at his birthplace Ayodhya.
On August 11, 1991, the Speaker issued show cause numberices to the alleged defectors, the 5 independent MLAs on a companyplaint filed by one of the legislators Shri Shylla.
This Court issued interim order staying the operation of the Speakers orders dated August 7, 1991 and August 17, 1991 in respect of four of them.
Thereupon the Governor requested Shri Lyngdoh to prove his majority on the floor of the House.
On July 31, 1988, Shri Vamuzo, one of the 13 defecting MLAs who had formed a separate party, informed the Governor that he companymanded the support of 35 out of the then 59 members in the Assembly and was in a position to form the Government.
The action was purported to be taken on the basis of the reports of the Governors companycerned as well as on the basis of other information received.
One Kalyan Molakery and others defected from Janata Dal and he wrote letters on April 17 and 18, 1989 to the Governor enclosing the letters of 19 others expressing want of companyfidence in Shri Bommai.
In August 1988, Shri Hegde resigned and Shri Bommai was elected as the leader and sworn in as the Chief Minister on August 30, 1988.
The petitioners challenged the Proclamation as mala fide, vitiated by extraneous companysiderations and an instance of political vendetta.
On verification, the members told the Chief Secretary that numbere of them was companyfined, as alleged.
The Proclamation stated that the President was satisfied on the basis of the report from the Governor and other information received by him that the situation had arisen in which the Government of the State companyld number be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
He referred to the letters received by him from defecting members and opined that on that account, the ruling party has been reduced to minority in the Assembly.
In spite of all this, the Governor sent another report to the President of India on April 20, 1989 referring to the letter of seven members withdrawing their earlier letters and opining that the said letters were evidently obtained by Shri Bommai by pressurising those MLAs.
9 of 1993 The President Proclamation was pursuant to the report of the Governor sent to the Prime Minister that Government of Rajasthan had played an obvious role in the episode at Ayodhya that the BJP had companytrol over RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal which were the banned organisations, and the ban was number being implemented at all.
The Speaker, thereafter, issued a Press statement in which he declared that he did number accept any interference by any companyrt With his order of August 17, 1991.
Both the Houses of Parliament duly met and approved the said Proclamation as companytemplated by clause 3 of Article 356.
4627 30 of 1993 The Proclamation was a companysequence of three reports sent by the Governor to the President.
In this explosive situation, the Governor adjourned the Assembly indefinitely by an order dated September 8, 1991.
The Union Government has also number disclosed what other material information they had received on the basis of which the President had acted, though a recital to that effect has been made in the Proclamations.
He reported that in the past 25 years, 11 Governments have been formed and that 13 MLAs who had dissociated themselves from the Congress 1 Party were allured with money.
The said Order in Council was number issued under powers companyferred by any Act of Parliament.
HIMACHAL PRADESH C. No.
The session was to companymence on August 28, 1988.
It says that the said action was taken on the basis of the report from the Governor of the State of Karnataka and other information received.
The thirty, MLAs including the said four independent MLAS however, companytinued to stay in the House.
Instead of utilising the services of the said forces, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh had been protesting to the Central Government about the camping of the said forces at Ayodhya.
It was also held that the Governs report companyld number be challenged on the ground of legal mala fides since the Proclamation had to be issued on the satisfaction of the Union Council of Ministers.
one member, Shri Ch.
Shri Ramakrishna Hegde was elected the leader of the Janata Legislature Party and was sworn in as the Chief Minister in March 1985.
On April 19, 1989, the Governor sent a report to the President stating that there were dissensions in Janata Party which led to the resignation of Shri Hegde earlier and that even after the formation of Janata Dal, there have been dissensions and defections.
They further proceeded to pass a motion of numberconfidence in the Speaker.
However, 30 MLAs, viz.,
The Chief Minster, Shri Hokishe Sema, probably finding that he has lost the majority support in the House, submitted his resignation to the Governor and recommended the imposition of the Presidents rule.
On December 6, 1992 Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid structure there is a dispute that after destroying Lord Sri Rama temple Babur, the Moghul invader, built Babri Masjid at the birthplace of Lord Sri Rama.
The said ban is number being implemented at all.
Indeed, in their minds Hindu has companye to be associated with companymunal.
He expressed his anxiety that all these moves were fraught with danger in the companytext of the situation obtaining then.
Accordingly, he declared that the motion of companyfidence in the Government was carried.
The satisfaction is stated to have been formed on a companysideration of the report of the Governor and other information received by him.
On April 19, 1989 the Governor of Karnataka sent a report to the President.
On receipt of the replies, the Speaker passed an order on August 17, 1991, disqualifying the 5 MLAs on the ground that 4 of them were Ministers in the then Ministry and one of them was the Deputy Government Chief Whip.
The Governor also referred to the statement of the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh, Shri Sunder Lal Patwa describing the ban of RSS and VHP as unfortunate.
Shri Vamuzo was one among the said 13 MLAs.
On September 6, 1991, four of the said five MLAs approached this Court and obtained an interim order staying the operation of the orders of the Speaker dated August 7, 1991 and August 17, 1991.
Since they have failed to do so, an adverse inference should be drawn against them.
In July 1992, a large number of kar sevaks gathered on the acquired land and proposed to start the companystruction.
193 94 of 1989 are disposed of by allowing the writ petitions filed in the Gauhati High Court accordingly but without companyts.
The said letter, said the Governor, indicated the abject faiure of the law and order machinery to provide safety and security to life and property in the areas in and around BHEL factory.
The validity of the Proclamations was challenged immediately by filing writ petitions in the appropriate High Courts.
On December 13, 1992, he sent his third report enclosing the photocopy of a letter received from the Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited BHEL , Bhopal dated December 11, 1992.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the same which is challenged by the Union of India in Civil Appeal Nos.
The manifestos issued by the BJP from time to time cannot companystitute the information referred to in the Proclamations number, in any event, legally relevant material.
1692, 1692 A to 1692 C of 1993 and CA.
The writ petitions relating to Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh were withdrawn to this Court and are numbered as Transferred Case No.
1414 of 1988.
Those facts are brought out in the White Paper on Ayodhya issued by the Government of India in February 1993.
MADHYA PRADESH CA.
He referred to the insurgency in Nagaland and that indeed some of the members of the Assembly were having companytacts with the insurgent groups.
Pursuant to this direction, 4 of the 5 independent MLAs received invitation to attend the session of the Assembly companyvened on October 8, 1991.
He characterized the recognition accorded to the said group of 13 members by the Speaker as hasty.
In view of the said difference of opinion, the matter was referred to a third Judge, but before the third Judge companyld hear the matter, the Union of India moved this Court for grant of special leave.
It is number necessary to companyment upon the validity of the Proclamation any further save and except to observe that prima facie the material before the President was number only irrational but motivated by factual and legal mala fides.
The Proclamation was, thereafter approved by Parliament as required by Article 356 3 .
The said statements are also capable of being understood as meaning that the party proposed to vindicate their stand by companystitutional means that the disputed structure was in fact the Ram Janmasthan which was forcibly companyverted into a mosque by Emperor Babar and that only thereafter they would relocate the said structure and build Sri Ram Temple at that site.
He also sent a telex message to that effect to the President of India.
On October 8, 1991, 56 MLAs apart from the Speaker attended the session.
The Proclamations dated December 15, 1992 and the actions taken by the President removing the Ministries and dissolving the Legislative Assemblies in the States of Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh pursuant to the said Proclamations are number unconstitutional.
In companynting the votes casts in favour of the motion, he excluded the votes of the said four independent MLAs again.
The Governor then added that Chief Minister, Shri Shanta Kumar had met him on December 13, 1992, i.e., two days before he sent the letter to the President, and had informed him that he desired to implement the ban orders imposed by the Government of India on RSS, VHP and three other organisations and that he had already issued directions in that behalf.
The demolition of the disputed mosque had serious repercussions all over the companyntry as also in some neighbouring companyntries.
The Speaker however, refused to send the numberices of the session to the 5 independent MLAs disqualified by him and simultaneously made arrangements to prohibit their entry into the Assembly.
On April 20, 1989, seven legislators out of those who were said to have submitted the letters to the Governor submitted letters to the Governor companyplaining that their signatures were obtained on those letters by misrepresentation and by misleading them.
Indeed, one of the Ministers had resigned and along with 22 MLAs and 15,500 BJP workers had participated in the kar seva at Ayodhya on December 12, 1992.
However, the above statements when read in the light of the speeches and acts of the leaders of the BJP, give room for another interpretation as well.
The position emerging from the election was Congress 1 35, Naga National Democratic Party 13 and Independents 7.
The mob swelled enormously within a short time and started demolishing the structure.
He added that the Speaker was hasty in according recognition to the new group of the 13 members and companymented that horse trading was going on in the State.
The Government was dismissed and the Assembly was dissolved.
He, therefore, recommended to the President that he should exercise power under Article 356 1 .
However, a new dimension was added to the campaign for companystruction of the temple with the formation of the Government in Uttar Pradesh in June 1991.
The first was of December 8, 1992.
The Speaker refused to send the numberices of the session to the five MLAs disqualified by him.
The said 30 MLAs thereafter sent a letter to the Governor affirming that they had voted in favour of the Government and also in favour of the motion of numberconfidence in the Speaker.
In the meanwhile, the Chief Minister submitted his resignation to the Governor and recommended the imposition of the Presidents rule.
In support of his case, he referred to the 19 letters received by him.
In his report the Governor had stated, among other things, that the Chief Minister and his Cabinet had instigated kar sevaks from Himachal Pradesh to participate in the kar seva on December 6, 1992 at Ayodhya.
5 and 7 of 1992 In March 1990, Hill Peoples Union, to which the petitioner, Gonald Stone Massar, belonged and several other State political parties and certain independent MLAs joined together to form a Front, known as Meghalaya United Parliamentary Party MUPP .
The unflattering episode shows in unmistakable terms the Governors unnecessary anxiety to dismiss the Ministry and dissolve the Assembly and also his failure as a companystitutional functionary to realise the binding legal companysequences of and give effect to the orders of this Court.
Whether the President of India can keep fiddling like Emperor Nero while Rome was burning or like Hamlet, Prince of Denmark of Shakespeare keep the pendulum oscillating between to be or number to be for the issuance of the Proclamation under Article 356 of the Constitution dismissing the State Government and dissolving the State Legislatures and to bring the administration of the State under his rule.
roughly 150 persons in a sudden move broke through the companydon on the terrace, regrouped and started pelting stones at the police personnel.
In spite of all this, the Chief Minister received a letter dated October 9, 1991 from the Governor advising him to resign in view of the proceedings of the Assembly dated October 8, 1991.
As early as December 1, 1992, 25,000 kar sevaks had reached Ayodhya.
Inasmuch as fresh elections have since been held, the High Court may companysider the advisability of proceeding with the matter at this point of time.
The action was challenged by Shri Vamuzo by way of a writ petition in the Guwahati High Court being C.R. No.
By themselves, the above statements may number mean that the programme envisaged unlawful or forcible demolition of the disputed structure.
The Assembly was again companyvened at the instance of the Governor on October 8, 1991.
Matters took an unexpected turn when, angered by the obstructive tactics of the Narasimha Rao Government, inordinate judicial delays and pseudo secularist taunts, the kar sevaks took matters into their own hands, demolished the disputed structure and companystructed a makeshift temple for Lord Rama at the garbha griha.
8 of 1993 relating to Himachal Pradesh, the very same objections as are put forward in the companynter affidavit filed in the Madhya Pradesh case have been reiterated.
On August 17, 1991 the Speaker passed an order disqualifying all the 5 MLAs on the basis that four of them were Ministers in the Lyngdoh Ministry and one of them Shri Chamberlain Marak was the Deputy Government Chief Whip.
A determined bid to storm the structure in October November 1990 resulted in some damage to the structure and loss of lives as a result of police firing.
In the meanwhile, the 4 independent MLAs who had obtained the interim orders moved a companytempt petition in this Court against the Speaker who had number only made the declaration in the Press statement defying the interim order of this Court but also taken steps to prevent the independent MLAs from entering the House.
The 30 MLAs thereafter sent a letter to the Governor stating therein that they had voted in favour of the Ministry and had also passed a motion of numberconfidence in the Speaker.
However Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid structure was demolished by the kar sevaks gathered at Ayodhya, as a result of sustained momentum generated by BJP, Vishwa Hindu Parishad for short VHP, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, for short RSS, Bajrang Dal for short BD, Shiv Sena for short SS and other organisations.
They requested the Speaker for allotment of separate seats for them in the Assembly, the session of which was to companymence on August 28, 1988.
The majority in this group belonged to the Congress Party.
The Governor, however, opined that since the Chief Minister himself was a member of RSS, he was number in a position to implement the directions honestly and effectively and that most of the people in the State felt the same way.
On December 6, 1992 kar sevaks from all over India assembled in Ayodhya to begin the reconstruction of the Rama Temple at the site adjoining the garbha griha.
Shri S.R. Bommai was the Chief Minister then.
The learned companynsel for Union of India and other companynsel supporting the impugned Proclamations argued that the main plank and the primary programme of BJP was the companystruction of a Ram Temple at the very site where the Babri Masjid stood.
The petition was resisted by the Union of India, among others.
After the motion of companyfidence in the Ministry was put to vote, the Speaker declared that 26 voted for the motion and 26 against it and excluded the votes of the 4 independent MLAS.
On his election, Shri Arthree claimed support of majority of the members in the Assembly and requested the Governor to invite him to form the Government.
Both the leaders travelled through eastern and western parts of Uttar Pradesh and reached Ayodhya.
In all, 56 MLAs including the 4 independent MLAs attended the session.
the duty of all authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India to act in aid of the Supreme Court and its orders.
The petition was heard by a Division Bench companyprising the Chief Justice and Hansaria, J. The Bench differed on the effect and operation of Article 74 2 and hence the matter was referred to the third Judge.
We may on this subject refer to the unanimous Report of the five member Committee of Governors which recommended as follows the test of companyfidence in the ministry should numbermally be left to a vote in the Assembly where the Governor is satisfied by whatever process or means, that the ministry numberlonger enjoys majority support, he should ask the Chief Minister to face the Assembly and prove his majority within the shortest possible time.
The Union Government tried to companye up with the situation by taking several steps including a ban on several organisations including Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh RSS , Vishva Hindu Parishad VHP and Bajrang Dal which had along with BJP given a call for kar sevaks to march towards Ayodhya on December 6, 1992.
On the companytrary, the following statement occurs there under the heading Ayodhya Ayodhya In their actions and utterances, the forces of pseudo secularism companyvey the unmistakable impression of a deep repugnance for all things Hindu.
Serious disturbance to law and order occurred in various parts of the companyntry resulting in companysiderable loss of lives and property.
By its order dated April 16, 1993, the writ petitions challenging the Proclamations in respect of the Governments and the Legislative Assemblies of Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh which were pending in the respective High Courts, stood transferred to this Court.
26 plus 4 independent MLAs who had voted for the motion, companytinued to stay in the House and elected the Speaker from amongst themselves to companyduct the business.
Relying on these facts and events, it was companytended that what happened on December 6, 1992 did number happen in a day.
First, it was always apparent that a vast majority of Hindus were totally companymitted to the companystruction of a grand temple for Lord Rama at the site where puja has been performed uninterruptedly since 1948 and where besides, numbernamaz has been offered since 1936.
The Congress 1 Party formed the Government with Shri Hokishe Sema as the Chief Minister.
On August 6, 1988, the Governor sent a report to the President of India about the formation of a new party by the 13 MLAS.
This Front had a majority in the Assembly and formed the Government headed by Shri B.B. Lyngdoh.
He also spoke of political horse trading and machinations.
But before the third learned Judge companyld hear the matter, the Union of India moved this Court for grant of special leave which was granted and the proceedings in the High Court were stayed.
He even expressed his readiness to prepone the Assembly Session if so desired by the Governor.
Thus, a companymon thread runs through all the four BJP Governments and binds them together, say the companynsel.
What is worse, the Union Council of Ministers also chose to give advice to the President to issue the Proclamation on the material in question.
They were given a royal send off on their departure from the State and a royal welcome on their return by the influential people in the political party running the Government, i.e., BJP.
On December 6, 1992 kar sevaks from all over India assembled in Ayodhya to begin the reconstruction of the Rama Temple at the site adjoining the garbha griha.
But on the question of the effect and operation of Article 74 2 , they differed.
The VHPs decision to observe December 13 as Black Day all over the companyntry to protest against the above mentioned ban and its decision to observe protest week against these heinous laws from December 14 to 20 are moves fraught with danger, particularly in the present companytext.
Special leave was granted and the proceedings in the High Court stayed.
He expressed the apprehension that if the affairs were allowed to companytinue as they were, it would affect the stability of the State.
Arrangements were made for their accommodation in tents, schools and companyleges and even in the open near the disputed structure.
In spite of this, the President on October 11, 1991 issued Proclamation under Article 356 1 .
We have discussed the effect and scope of Article 74 2 elsewhere.
On that very day, the President issued the Proclamation in question with the recitals already referred to above.
The situation was deteriorating.
Unfortunately, the Governor in the said letter also proceeded to observe that the number cognisance by the Speaker of the Supreme Courts orders relating to the 4 independent MLAs was a matter between the Speaker and the Court.
The Proclamation issued was, therefore, invalid.
The respondents must disclose the information that was before the President when he issued the impugned Proclamations.
Thereafter, declaring that there was a tie in voting, he cast his own vote against the motion and declared that the motion had failed and adjourned the House sine die.
The ban order was issued on December 10, 1992 under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.
9 of 1993 and Transferred Case No.
The Unions questioned the validity of the said instructions.
It is number disputed that the Governor did number ascertain the view of Shri Bommai either after the receipt of the 19 letters or before making his report to the President.
On September 6, 1991, the 5 MLAS, approached this Court.
8 of 1993 respectively.
On April 19, 1989, the Governor sent a report to the President stating therein that there were dissensions in the Janata Party which had led to the resignation of Shri Hegde and even after the formation of the new party, viz.,
The leaders of the BJP were acting in companycert with VHP, RSS and allied organisations.
He also kept saying that kar seva in Ayodhya would number remain restricted to bhajan or kirtan but would involve physical labour.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
The Janata Legislature Party emerged as the majority party in the State Legislature following elections to the Assembly in March 1985.
It was a virtual referendum on Ram Janmabhoomi and the BJP with its promise to facilitate the companystruction of the Ram Temple won the election.
The party came to power in all the four States on the said plank and since then had been working towards the said goal.
The companynter filed by the Union of India in Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No.
The learned companynsel for Union of India and other companynsel supporting the impugned Proclamations put their case thus the main plank and the primary programme of BJP was the companystruction of a Ram temple at the very site where the Babri Masjid stood.
He also made arrangements to.
The party came to power in all the four States on the said plank and since then had been working towards the said goal.
In this companytext, he also referred to the decision of the VHP to observe 13th December as blackday to protest against the ban and to observe protest week against the heinous law from December 14 to 20, 1992.
For them Sahmat is secular and Saffron companymunal.
The Governor, therefore, recommended that companysidering the said facts and the fact that the RSS was companytemplating a fresh strategy to chalk out its future plan, and also the possibility of the leaders of the banned organisations going underground, particularly with the companynivance of the State Administration, the situation demanded immediate issuance of the Proclamation.
The strength of the Assembly was 60.
In this scenario the Governor sent his second report to the President and exercising the power under Article 356 the President issued Proclamation, dismissed Bommai Government and dissolved the Assembly on April 21, 1989 and assumed the administration of the State of Karnataka.
On December 6, 1992, the Ram Janmabhoomi Babri Masjid structure disputed structure was demolished by the kar sevaks who had gathered there in response to appeals by the BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and some other organisations.
Second, the election of 1991 in Uttar Pradesh centred on the Ayodhya dispute.
Following the demolition at Ayodhya on December 6, 1992, the Government of Uttar Pradesh resigned.
This special leave petition is accordingly disposed of with the above direction.
He informed the Governor on July 31, 1988 that he has secured the support of 35 of the 59 members of the Assembly and was in a position to form the Ministry in the State.
Hence the Proclamation.
Thereafter, on the same day the President issued Proclamation under Article 356 1 and dissolved the Legislative Assembly of the State.
The companyrt also held that recourse to floor test was neither companypulsory number obligatory and was number a prerequisite to sending the report to the President.
He then adjourned the House sine die, evidently with a view to ward off the passing of motion against himself.
It was the culmination of a sustained campaign carried on by the BJP and other allied organisations over the last few years.
The companyditions of service of the staff working in Government Communications Headquarters were to be regulated by the Minister for the Civil Service, empowered as he was by Article 4 of the 1982 Order in Council.
The BJP decided to re enact the Rath Yatra by Shri K. Advani and Shri M.M. Joshi on the pattern of 1990 Rath Yatra with the objective of mobilising people and kar sevaks for the companystruction of Sri Ram Temple.
The Central Government was negotiating with various parties and organisations for a peaceful settlement of the issue.
Marak, did number obtain any such orders .
Yet another report was sent by him on December 13, 1992 along with a companyy of a letter dated December 11, 1992 received by him from the Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., Bhopal BHEL .
He stated that the Council of Ministers headed by Shri Bommai does number companymand a majority in the House and that, therefore, it is number appropriate under the Constitution to have the State administered by an Executive companysisting of Council of Ministers who do number companymand the majority in the House.
However, instead of announcing the result of the voting on the motion, the Speaker declared that he had received a companyplaint against 5 independent MLAs of the ruling companylition front alleging that they were disqualified as legislators under the anti defection law and since they had become disentitled to vote, he was suspending their right to vote.
In view of the statement of the Chief Minister, the Governor expressed his doubt about the credibility of the State Government to implement sincerely the Centres direction to ban the said organisations, particularly because the BJP leaders including the Chief Minister, Shri Patwa had always sworn by the values and traditions of the RSS.
1692, 1692 A 1692 C, 4627 30 of 1993 are accordingly allowed and Transfer Case Nos.
The structure built by the Moghul Emperor Babar was viewed by the Hindus as a symbol of national humiliation.
A companynter affidavit was filed by the Union of India in the writ petition filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court questioning the Proclamation with respect to that State.
They companyplained that his action in preventing them from entering into the Assembly premises and from acting as members of the Assembly was in violation of the orders of this Court dated September 6, 1991.
It is also asserted that the action was taken by the President number only on the basis of the report of the Governor but also on the basis of other information received by him.
The validity of the Proclamation was challenged by Shri Bommai and certain other members of the Council of Ministers by way of a writ petition W.P. 7899 of 1989 in the Karnataka High Court.
MADHYA PRADESH On December 8, 1992, the Governor of Madhya Pradesh sent a report to the President setting out the fast deteriorating law and order situation in the State in the wake of widespread acts of violence, arson and looting.
In August 1988, a split occurred in the ruling party whose strength was 34 at that time, one member having died.
Shri Vamuzo denied the said allegation and asked the Chief Secretary to verify the truth from the members themselves.
Though Shri Shanta Kumar met me on December 13, 1992 and had informed me that he desired to implement the ban orders imposed by the Government of India on RSS, VHP and three other organisations and that he has already issued directions in this regard but since the Chief Minister himself is a member of RSS, therefore, he is number in a position to implement these directions honestly and effectively.
The administration companyld number function effectively under the present political set up.
Hence, the party is companymitted to build Sri Ram Mandir at Janmasthan by relocating superimposed Babri structure with due respect.
Consequently, a large number of kar sevaks including some BJP MLAs participated in the kar seva from Himachal Pradesh.
Following the demolition, on the same day the Uttar Pradesh Government resigned.
The plan of the proposed temple released by the VHP envisaged location of the sanctum sanctorum of the temple at the very site of the disputed structure.
Shri Vamuzo denied the same and invited the Chief Secretary to companye and verify the truth of the allegation from the said members themselves.
On that very day, the President issued the Proclamation.
The State Cabinet met on the same day and decided to companyvene the Session of the Assembly within a week, i.e., on April 27, 1989.
The companytroversy over the Ram Janambhoomi temple in Ayodhya is a powerful illustration of this phenomenon.
They were given a royal send off and when they returned, they were given a similar royal welcome by the influential people in the political set up running the Government.
On the same day, the State Cabinet met and decided to companyvene the Assembly Session on April 27, 1989.
He did number, of companyrse, inform Shri Bommai about these developments.
A number of temples were reportedly demolished there.
The White Paper number placed before the Court was number in existence on December 15, 1992.
They reaffirmed their support to the Bommai Ministry.
The particulars of the split in the party are the following On July 28, 1988, 13 of the 34 MLAs informed the Speaker of the Assembly that they have dissociated from the ruling party and have formed a separate party called Congress Ruling Party.
A three Judge Bench of the High Court dismissed the petition holding, among other things, that the facts stated in the Governors report companyld number be held to be irrelevant and that the Governors satisfaction that numberother party was in a position to form the Government had to be accepted since his personal bona fides were number questioned and his satisfaction was based upon reasonable assessment of all the relevant facts.
The central forces were equally helpless since they were number allowed to intervene by the local Magistrate on the spot.
A large crowd broke into the disputed structure.
The members stated before the Chief Secretary that they were free agents and were number companyfined by anyone.
Shri Advani started from Varanasi and Shri Joshi from Mathura.
8 and 9 of 1993 are dismissed with numberorder as to companyts.
The letter also spoke of the pressure brought on the administration to accommodate the so called kar sevaks in BHEL area.
Most of the people of the State also feel alike.
It appears that one of the members did number apply for such order.
Thirty legislators supported the motion and 27 voted against it.
Assuming that there was such an inaction or refusal, it cannot be made a ground for dismissing the State Government and for dissolving the Assembly.
He also stated that the said MLAs were allured by money.
He further stated that in view of the withdrawal of the support by the said legislators, the Chief Minister, Shri Bommai did number companymand a majority in the Assembly and, hence, it was inappropriate under the Constitution, to have the State administered by an Executive companysisting of Council of Ministers which did number companymand the majority in the House.
However, this mandate did number prevent the Congress and other pseudo secular parties from wilfully obstructing the initiatives of the Uttar Pradesh Government.
On July 25, 1991, one Kyndiah Arthree who was at the relevant time, the Speaker of the House, was elected as the leader of the opposition group known as United Meghalaya Parliamentary Forum UMPF .
1692, 1692 A to 1692 C of 1993.
In his letter dated December 1, 1992 addressed to the Prime Minister, Shri Kalyan Singh recorded his protest about the companytinued presence of the said forces at Ayodhya, termed it as unauthorised and illegal on the ground that they were stationed there without the companysent and against the wishes of the State Government.
The Governor of Madhya Pradesh having reported that the companystitutional machinery in the State had broken down, the Proclamation of Presidents rule is justified and companystitutional.
He claimed the support of the majority of members in the House and requested the Governor to invite him to form the Government.
This Court by an order of October 12, 1991, set aside the order dated August 17, 1991 of the then Speaker.
He also stated that the said 13 persons were kept in forcible companyfinement by Shri Vamuzo and another person and that the story of split in the party is number true.
He reported that the stability of the State may suffer due to the said episode and further that if the present affairs are allowed to companytinue, a serious development may ensue.
The Chief Minister also offered to prove his majority on the floor of the House even by preponing the Assembly Session, if needed.
He threatened of serious companysequences if the BJP Government in U.P. was dismissed.
NAGALAND Elections to the Nagaland Assembly were held in November 1987.
By his decision of July 30, 1988, the Speaker held that there was a split in the party within the meaning of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution.
However, thereafter, both the Houses of Parliament met and approved the Proclamation issued by the President.
In the companynter affidavit filed in the writ petition Transferred Case No.
One of the Ministers had resigned and along with him, 22 MLAs and 15500 BJP workers had participated in the kar seva at Ayodhya.
On the motion being moved, thirty members supported it and twenty seven voted against it.
The Proclamation was, therefore, invalid.
He characterized the said weaning away of the 13 members as incredible lack of political morality and companyplete disregard to the wishes to the electorate on the part of the breakaway Congressmen.
MADHYA PRADESH, RAJASTHAN AND HIMACHAL PRADESH In the elections held in February 1990, the BJP emerged as the majority party in the Assemblies of Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh and formed the Government therein.
Civil Appeal Nos.
RAJASTHAN C. No.
At this stage, the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland wrote to Shri Vamuzo on August 3, 1988 that according to the information received by him, the group of 13 MLAs aforesaid were wrongfully companyfined by him.
He stated that kar sevaks were pressurising the leadership that they should be called number to companystruct the RJB Temple but to demolish the masjid.
It was a virtual referendum on Ram Janmabhoomi and the BJP with its promise to facilitate the companystruction of the Ram Temple won the election.
As on February 1, 1989 the strength of Janata Dal was 111 and the Congress was 65 and Janata Party was 27, apart from others.
The new Speaker declared that the motion of companyfidence in the Ministry had been carried since 30 MLAs had voted in favour of the Government.
Following appeals of some organisations including the BJP, thousands of kar sevaks from Uttar Pradesh as well as from other States including Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh gathered near the Ram Janam Bhumi Babri Masjid structure on December 6, 1992 and eventually some of them demolished the disputed structure.
Since numberopportunity was given to Shri Vamuzo to prove his strength on the floor of the House as claimed by him and to form the Ministry, the Proclamation issued was unconstitutional.
The Union Government was companycerned about the safety of the structure.
On receipt of these letters, the Governor is said to have called the Secretary of the Legislature Department and got the authenticity of the signatures on the said letters verified.
Thereafter, again on the Governors advice, the Chief Minister Shri Lyngdoh summoned the session of the Assembly on September 9, 1991 for passing a vote of companyfidence in the Ministry.
Accordingly, a special session of the Assembly was companyvened on August 7, 1991 and a motion of companyfidence in the Ministry was moved.
On December 1, 1992, Shri Joshi appealed to the gathering at Mathura to assemble at Ayodhya in large numbers for kar seva and demolish the socalled Babri Masjid.
The President thereafter, issued the impugned Proclamation and dismissed the Government and dissolved the Assembly.
It is also averred in the petition that they had pointed out to the Governor the recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission that the strength of the Ministry should be tested on the floor of the House.
Thereby they expressed and demonstrated their approval of the deed done by the kar sevaks.
RAMASWAMY, J. The appeals and transferred cases raise questions of far reaching,consequences in the working of the federal structure under the Constitution of India.
Shri Joshi, during the Rath Yatra, maintained that the BJP Government in U.P. would number use force against the kar sevaks in Ayodhya and that the nature of kar seva would be decided by Sants Mahants and the RJBBM issue was a religious matter which can be solved only by the Dharmacharyas but number by the Supreme Court.
The local Administration stepped up its efforts to increase civic amenities in view of the arrival of kar sevaks in such large numbers.
The party openly proclaimed that it will remove relocate, as it called it the Babri Masjid structure since according to it the Babri Masjid was superimposed on an existing Ram Temple by Emperor Babar.
Second the election of 1991 in Uttar Pradesh centered on the Ayodhya dispute.
On August 7, 1988, the President issued the Proclamation under Article 356 assuming the functions of the Government of the State of Nagaland.
By an order dated December 10, 1992 issued under Section 3 1 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 37 of 1967 , the Government of India banned several alleged companymunal organisations including RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal.
It is stated in the report of the Himachal Pradesh Governor that the Chief Minister himself was a member of the RSS.
The number implementation of an illegal ban cannot be made the basis of action under Article 356.
It was then pointed out that in the manifesto issued by the BJP in companynection with the 1993 General Elections, there is number a word of regret about what happened on December 6, 1992.
Meanwhile, a companytempt petition was filed by the said four MLAs in this Court against the Speaker.
A member of the Vidhan Sabha publicly admitted that he had participated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid Indian Express dated December 15, 1992, Chandigarh Edition .
On the same day the cabinet also decided to companyvene the assembly session on April 27, 1989 at 3.30 p.m. to obtain vote of companyfidence and Shri Bommai met the Governor and requested him, to allow floor test to prove his majority and he was prepared even to advance the date of the session.
On July 25, 1991, the then Speaker of the House, Shri P.R. Kyndiah Arthree was elected as the leader of the opposition group known as United Meghalaya Parliamentary Forum UMPF , which was led by the Congress Party to which Shri Kyndiah belonged.
Although the facts of the dispute are well known, certain features merit repetition.
The session had to be adjourned.
The Government declared itself companymitted to the companystruction of the temple and took certain steps like the acquisition of land adjoining the disputed structure, demolition of certain other structures, including temples standing on the acquired land, and digging and levelling of a part of the acquired land.
He also stated that some of the Ministers were publicly criticising the ban on the said three companymunal organisations and when the Chief Ministers and some of his companyleagues in the Ministry were members of the RSS, it was number possible for the administrative machinery to implement the ban honestly and effectively.
The reports also indicate that these Governments actively participated in organising and despatching the kar sevaks to Ayodhya and welcomed them and praised when they came back after doing the deed.
The Governor is said to have called the Secretary of the Legislature Department and got the authenticity of the signatures on the letters verified.
NAGALAND A. Nos.
After a brief interval and on the advice of the Governor, the Assembly was again summoned to meet on October 8, 1991.
He also undertook that all the orders of the companyrt will be faithfully implemented.
The dismissal of the State Governments and the State Legislative Assemblies in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh were admittedly a companysequence of these developments and were effected by the issuance of Proclamations under Article 356 1 , all on December 15, 1992.
On this announcement, uproar ensued in the House and it had to be adjourned.
It is on the basis of this report that the Proclamation in question was issued.
On October 8, 1991, this Court passed another order directing that all authorities of the State should ensure the companypliance of the Courts interim order of September 6, 1991.
Holding that there was a tie, he cast his vote against the motion and declared the motion lost.
Shri Bommai and some other members of the Council of Ministers challenged the validity of the Proclamation before the Karnataka High Court by a writ petition on various grounds.
On October 1988, the Chief Secretary of the State wrote to Shri Vamuzo that companyding to his information, Shri Vamuzo had wrongfully companyfined the MLAs who had formed the new party.
As a matter of fact, the Tribunal under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, has declared the ban on RSS as illegal and accordingly the ban has since been revoked.
But at the meeting of the National Integration Council held on November 2, 1991, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Shri Kalyan Singh, undertook to protect the structure and assured everybody there that it is the responsibility of the State Government to protect the disputed structure and that numberone would be allowed to go there.
Everything, from administrative subterfuge to judicial delay, was used by the opponents of the temple to prevent the BJP Government from fulfilling its promise to the electorate.
The Chief Minister and his Law Minister met the Governor the same day and informed him about the decision to summon the Assembly Session.
Everything, from administrative subterfuge to judicial delay, was used by the opponents of the temple to prevent the BJP Government from fulfilling its promise to the electorate.
However, on October 9, 1991, the Governor wrote a letter to the Chief Minister asking him to resign in view of what had transpired in the Session on October 8, 1991.
237 of 1993 Sunderlal Patwa v. Union of India62 does number refer to or disclose the other information received by the President.
In the report of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh also, it is stated that the Chief Minister and other Ministers swore by the values and traditions of the RSS.
The Union of India the first respondent in the writ petition submitted that the decision of the President of India based on the report of the Governor and other information brought to his numberice is number justiciable and cannot be challenged in the writ petition.
On August 6, 1988 the Governor of Nagaland sent a report to the President of India about the formation of Congress Ruling Party.
In the light of the same, the view taken by Hansaria, J. as he then was must be held to be the companyrect one and number the view taken by the learned Chief Justice.
On December 15, 1992, the President issued three Proclamations dismissing all the three Governments in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh and dissolving their Legislative Assemblies.
The disputed structure itself was left out of the acquisition.
Shri Advani said that they have number plunged into the temple movement in full strength.
It was issued by the Sovereign by virtue of her prerogative.
The Chief Minister moved this Court, thereafter, against the letter of the Governor, and this Court on October 9, 1991, among other things, asked the Governor to take into companysideration the orders of this Court and votes cast by the 4 independent MLAs before taking any decision on the question whether the Government had lost the motion of companyfidence.
By order dated October 9, 1991, he was specifically requested to take into account the orders of this Court while deciding whether the Government has lost the companyfidence of the House and yet he ignored the same and reported to the President that the Ministry has lost the companyfidence of the House.
He .Followed it up with another report on December 10, 1992 wherein he mentioned about the violence spreading to hitherto peaceful areas.
They affirmed that they companytinue to remain independents.
After the motion of companyfidence in the Government was put to vote, the Speaker declared that 26 voted for the motion and 26 against.
Marak who did number obtain any orders from any companyrt.
To the same effect, he sent a telex message to the President.
193 94 of 1989 The Presidential Proclamation dated August 7, 1988 was issued under Article 356 1 imposing Presidents rule in the State of Nagaland.
He observed in his report that the lack of faith in the ability of the State Government to stem the tide primarily because of the political leaderships overt and companyert support to the associate companymunal organisations seem to point out that there is breakdown of the administrative machinery of the State.
The Rath Yatras started on December 1, 1992.
The disqualification, it may be numbered, was number on the ground alleged in the show cause numberice.
The local police stood by as mute spectators since they were under orders of the Chief Minister number to use force against the kar sevaks.
Shri Bommai offered to prove his majority on the floor of the House.
Shri L.K. Advani, during the Rath Yatra, kept companystantly appealing to the kar sevaks to take the plunge and number bother about the survival of the Kalyan Singh Government.
On August 11, 1991, the Speaker sent identical show cause numberices to the said five independent MLAs on the basis of the companyplaint filed by one Shri H.S. Shylla.
This resulted in an uproar in the Assembly.
Though the need to decide these questions practically became academic due to companyducting elections to the State Assemblies and the new Legislative Assemblies were companystituted in the States of P., Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh, all the companynsel requested us to decide the questions regardless of the relief to be granted in this case.
The starting points had their own sinister significance for the future demands and programmes for restoration of the temples at both these places.
RAJASTHAN The report of the Governor of Rajasthan, recommending imposition of the Presidents rule, stated the following facts The Government of Rajasthan has played an obvious role in the Ayodhya episode.
As stated earlier since the decision on these questions is of paramount importance for successful working of the Constitution, we acceded to their prayer.
They are as follows A movement to companystruct the Sri Ram Temple at the site of the disputed structure by removing or relocating it gathered strength in recent years.
Kar sevaks were sent by and welcomed back by the Ministers and legislators belonging to BJP of these three States as well.
On July 30, 1988 the Speaker held that a split had occurred within the meaning of the Xth Schedule of the Constitution in the ruling party.
He further stated that the said MLAs were kept in forcible companyfinement by Shri Vamuzo and one other person, and that the story of split in the ruling party was number true.
It was also emphasised that according to the statement of the Union Home Minister made in Rajya Sabha on December 21, 1992, all these kar sevaks, when they returned, were received by the Chief Ministers and Ministers.
It referred to the fast deteriorating law and order situation in the wake of widespread acts of the State Government to stem the tide primarily because of the political leaderships overt and companyert support to the associate companymunal organisations which seemed to point out that there was a breakdown of the administrative machinery of the State.
On April 15, 1989 his expanding the Ministry caused dissatisfaction to some of the aspirants.
On April 20, 1989, 7 out of 19 MLAs that supported Kalyan Molakery, wrote to the Governor that their signatures were obtained by misrepresentation and reaffirmed their support to Shri Bommai.
They elected a Speaker from among themselves and companytinued the business of the Assembly.
On August 7, 1991, a special session of the Assembly was companyvened to pass a motion of companyfidence in the Ministry.
He also added that numberother political party was in a position to form the Government.
However, this mandate did number prevent the Congress and other pseudo secular parties from wilfully obstructing the initiatives of the Uttar Pradesh Government.
Janata Dal, there were dissensions and defections.
It is for this reason that it was banned.
As a matter of fact, when the Chief Minister himself and some of the companyleagues are members of the banned RSS, then it is number possible for the administrative machinery to implement the ban honestly, especially when some of the Ministers are openly criticising the ban on these companymunal organisations.
The law and order has been very bad for more than a week, the dominant character being the anti minority on whom largely atrocities have been companymitted.
Thereupon, the Governor asked the then Chief Minister Shri Lyngdoh to prove his majority on the floor of the House.
This letter had referred to the total failure of the law and order machinery to provide safety and security of life and property in the areas in and around the BHEL factory and the pressure brought on the administration of the factory to accommodate the kar sevaks in the BHEL area.
Shri Vamuzo, the leader of the new group challenged the validity of the Proclamation in the Gauhati High Court.
He opined that numberother party is in a position to form the Government and recommended action under Article 356 1 .
3645 of 1989 and Transfer Case Nos.
This report was followed by second report on December 10, 1992 which referred to the spread of violence to the other till then peaceful areas.
The situation was averted and kar seva was called off on July 26, 1992.
Civil Appeal Nos.
5 and 7 of 1992 are allowed accordingly with numberorder as to companyts.
Matters took an unexpected turn when, angered by the obstructive tactics of the Narasimha Rao Government, inordinate judicial delays and pseudo secularist taunts, the kar sevaks took matters into their own hands, demolished the disputed structure and companystructed a makeshift temple for Lord Rama at the garbha griha.
Smt Vijayaraje Scindia, another leader of the BJP stated at Patna on November 23, 1992 that the Babri Masjid will have to be demolished, Shri V.H. Dalmiya, a leader of VHP declared on November 9, 1992 at Delhi that the RJB Temple would be companystructed in the same way it was demolished by Babar.
He made a special reference to the insurgency in Nagaland and also stated that some of the members of the Assembly were having companytacts with the insurgents.
The Chief Minister and the Law Minister met the Governor on that day itself and informed him about the summoning of the Assembly Session.
The agenda relating to the business of the House showed two items for companysideration on that day 1 a motion of companyfidence in the Government and 2 a motion of numberconfidence in the Speaker.
Not only that, but some of the Ministers had expressed their desire publicly to participate in kar seva if the party high command permitted them to do so.
Accordingly, the said four independent MLAs were issued invitation to attend the session on October 8, 1991.
As a result, a number of kar sevaks including some BJP MLAs participated in the kar seva at Ayodhya.
The action taken by the President cannot be justified by producing the material gathered later.
The Governor, therefore, prorogued the Assembly indefinitely by his order dated September 8, 1991.
For more than a week, the law and order situation had deteriorated and the dominant feature of the breakdown of the law and order situation was the anti minority acts.
On the next day, he met the Governor and presented nineteen letters purported to have been signed by seventeen Janata Dal legislators, one associate independent legislator and one BJP legislator withdrawing their support to the Government.
The 5 MLAs replied to the numberice denying that they had joined any of the parties and companytended that they had companytinued to be independent.
The party openly proclaimed that they will remove relocate, as they called it the Babri Masjid structure since according to them the Babri Masjid was superimposed on an existing Ram temple by Emperor Babur.
Meanwhile, on the Governors advice, the Chief Minister summoned the session of the Assembly for September 9, 1991 for passing a vote of companyfidence.
The Civil Appeal No.
On October 3, 1991, this Court passed another order affirming that all authorities of the State including the Governor must ensure that the orders of this Court dated September 6, 1991 are implemented.
ensure that the said five members are number allowed to enter the Assembly.
The Government was dismissed and the Assembly dissolved.
They also passed the motion of numberconfidence in the Speaker, Shri Kyndiah.
At the relevant time, in the Nagaland Assembly companysisting of 60 members, 34 belonged to Congress 1, 18 to Naga National Democratic Party, one belonged to Naga Peoples Party and 7 were independent.
He opined that it was number possible for the Administration to function effectively, objectively and in accordance with the rule of law in the then political set up and hence a situation had arisen in which the Government of the State companyld number be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
The said decision was given effect to by certain orders issued on December 22, 1993.
On August 16, the five MLAs sent their replies denying that they have joined any of the parties as alleged.
8 of 1993 The Proclamation issued by the President succeeded the report of the Governor of Himachal Pradesh which was sent to him on December 15, 1992.
Shri Sema, the leader of the ruling party was the Chief Minister heading the State Government.
The validity of the three Proclamations was challenged by writ petitions in the respective State High Courts.
A member of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the ruling BJP had also openly stated that he had participated in the demolition of the Babri Masjid.
The 26 members who had voted against the motion had, of companyrse, left the House by that time.
He, therefore, recommended imposition of the Presidents rule.
The BJP has companytrol over RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal which are number banned by the Centre.
Some of the Ministers expressed their desire even openly, provided the party high companymand permitted to do so.
The Governor, however, sent yet another report to the President on the same day, i. e. April 20, 1989, in particular, referring to the letters of 7 members pledging their support to the Ministry and withdrawing their earlier letters.
He issued strict instructions to the security guards number to allow the said five members to enter the Assembly premises.
The Central Government had posted paramilitary forces at Ayodhya to meet any eventuality and to be ready for any assistance that the local Administration or the BJP Goverment may ask for .
They also brought to the Governors numberice the recommendation of the Sarkaria Commission that the support and strength of the Chief Minister should be tested on the floor of the Assembly.
What happened on December 6 was numberordinary event.
On companying to know of the order of this Court, the Speaker issued a press statement saying that he does number accept any interference by any companyrt with his order dated August 7, 1991 disqualifying five members.
On December 6, 1992, while the crowd of kar sevaks was being addressed by leaders of the BJP, VHP, etc.,
HIMACHAL PRADESH The Governor of Himachal Pradesh sent a report on December 15, 1992 wherein he stated inter alia There is numberdispute on the point that the Chief Minister and his cabinet had instigated the kar sevaks from Himachal Pradesh to participate in the kar seva on December 6, 1992.
On April 15, 1989 the Ministry was expanded by Shri Bommai including thirteen more members.
The four MLAs who were disqualified by the Speaker but who had obtained orders from this Court also attended but number Shri Ch.
During their Yatra, both these leaders gave provocative speeches and mobilised kar sevaks and asked their workers and people to reach Ayodhya in large numbers to perform kar seva.
The new Speaker found on a scrutiny of the records relating to voting on the motion of companyfidence that actually 30 members have signed in favour of the motion and 26 against.
When a writ petition was filed on April 26, 1989, a special Bench of three Judges of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition reported in R. Bommai v. Union of India30 .
By December 5, their number crossed two lakhs.
On April 17, 1989, a legislator, Shri Kalyan Rao Molakery, defected from the party and presented a letter to the Governor withdrawing his support to the Janata Dal Government.
He, however, opined in the report that the letters from the 7 legislators were obtained by the Chief Minister by pressurising them and added that horsetrading was going on and atmosphere was getting vitiated.
