U.N.R Rao VS Indira Gandhi

U.N.
R RAO VS INDIRA GANDHI
AIR ON, 17 MARCH 1971
Citation 1971 AIR SC 1002

Date of Judgment 17/03/1971
Court Madras High Court
Appellant U.N. R. Rao
Respondent Indira Gandhi
Bench Bench: Sikri, S.M.), Mitter, G.K., Hegde,
K.S., Grover, A.N., Reddy, P. Jaganmohan
Referred Article 75, 75(3),74 & 3, 74(1).

Case Type/ Issue Writ Petition
FACT OF CASE
There were disagreements between Morarji Desai and Indira Gandhi, the prime minister at
the time, in 1969 and 1970. In order to hold new elections, Indira Gandhi encouraged the
President to dissolve the Lok Sabha. The President then called for the dissolution of the Lok
Sabha and asked Indira Gandhi to remain in her position as prime minister.
Following this, petitioner U.N. Rao, a Madras attorney, requested in a writ of quo warranto
that the Madras High Court rule that the Prime Minister lacked the constitutional authority
to hold office and perform the duties of Prime Minister.
He stated that “the Prime Minister and other Ministers ceased to hold office as soon as the
House of the People was dissolved under Article 83 (2) of the Constitution.” According to
Article 75, paragraph 3, the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of
People, he said. According to him, the Council of Since Article 83(2) didn’t exist, ministers
couldn’t be held responsible for the House of People’s dissolution.
ISSUE
If a Council of Ministers is required under Article 74 (1) even when the House of the People
has been dissolved or its term has ended was the key topic of discussion in the case of U.N.
R. Rao v. Smt. Indira Gandhi.
U.N. R. Rao, the appellant, argued that the Prime Minister and other Ministers lost their
positions as soon as the House of the People was dissolved in accordance with Article 83(2)
of the Constitution. The phrasing of Article 75 (3), which states that the Council of Ministers
shall be jointly responsible to the House of People, served as the foundation for this
argument.
He argued that it was impossible to hold the Council of Ministers responsible.
ARGUMENT
1. Appellant’s Argument (U.N. R. Rao): The appellant claimed that the Prime Minister
and other Ministers ceased to hold office as soon as the House of the People was
dissolved in accordance with Article 83(2) of the Constitution. The phrasing of Article
75 (3), which states that the Council of Ministers shall be jointly responsible to the
House of People, served as the foundation for this argument.
2. Respondent’s Argument (Smt. Indira Gandhi): The respondent contended that even
though the Parliament has been dissolved, the Prime Minister and her cabinet must
continue to serve in their “caretaker” roles in order to maintain the stability and
leadership of the nation. Sans any form of government. This point of view is also
consistent with the norms upheld not only in the United Kingdom but also in other
nations that practice a similar form of accountable government.
JUDGEMENT
The norm and idea of collective responsibility have been taken from English law, the
Supreme Court ruled, rejecting the petitioner’s case. Even though the Parliament is dissolved
in England, the custom is that the Prime Minister and her without a government, the peace
and administration of the nation would be disturbed, hence the cabinet must continue to
function as “caretaker.”
The court determined that nothing in the Constitution, specifically Article 75(3), makes the
respondent’s role as prime minister incompatible with the Constitution. Instead of a
Presidential form, the Indian Constitution established a Parliamentary system of government
with a cabinet.
The responsible government established by Article 75 (3) requires that the House of the
People have trust in the Council of Ministers. When the House of the People is not dissolved
or prorogued, it can only indicate that Article 75 (3) applies since when it is dissolved, the
The Council of Ministers cannot be trusted by the House of Representatives.However,
because Article 74 (1) stipulates that the Prime Minister-led Council of Ministers must be
consulted before the President may exercise his or her executive authority, such dissolution
of the House does not entail that the Prime Minister and other ministers must resign, cease
to hold office, or be dismissed by the President.

U.N.R Rao VS Indira Gandhi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.N.R Rao VS Indira Gandhi

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.N.R Rao VS Indira Gandhi

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.N.

R RAO VS INDIRA GANDHI

AIR ON, 17 MARCH 1971

Citation 1971 AIR SC 1002

Referred Article 75, 75(3),74 & 3, 74(1).

You might also like