U N R Rao v Smt Indira Gandhi
Rule established
Article 74(1) is mandatory. There must at all times be a Council of Ministers with the Prime Minister at its head to aid and advise the President, and the Council does not cease to hold office on the dissolution of the House of the People.
Facts
- The House of the People was dissolved before the expiry of its term.
- The petitioner contended that under Art.75(3) the Council of Ministers is collectively responsible to the House of the People, so that once that House ceased to exist there was no body to which the Council could be responsible.
- On that footing it was argued that the Prime Minister and the other Ministers ceased to hold office on dissolution.
- The consequence urged was that during the interval until a new House was constituted, the President was to exercise the executive power personally and without ministerial advice.
- Proceedings in the nature of quo warranto were brought questioning the Prime Minister's continuance in office.
Issue
- Whether the Council of Ministers ceases to hold office on the dissolution of the House of the People, and whether Art.74(1) is mandatory or merely directory.
Held
- The petition failed. Article 74(1) is mandatory. Its language, that there shall be a Council of Ministers to aid and advise the President, admits of no gap. The Court reasoned that the contrary construction would leave the President exercising executive power alone and without advice for the whole period between dissolution and the constitution of a new House, converting a constitutional head into an absolute ruler for that period, which the Constitution nowhere contemplates. Collective responsibility under Art.75(3) governs the Ministry's tenure in normal circumstances but cannot be read so as to create a vacuum. The outgoing Council therefore continues in office, on a caretaker footing, until a new Council is appointed.
Ratio Decidendi
The Constitution establishes responsible government as a continuous system, not one that lapses between Houses. Executive power under Art.53 must be exercised in accordance with the Constitution, and Art.74(1) prescribes the manner of its exercise in terms that are unqualified. Where two constructions are possible, the one that preserves the constitutional scheme is to be preferred over the one that suspends it, and the scheme requires that the President always have advisers who are answerable, in due course, to the electorate through a House.
How to use it in an exam
- Cite it for the proposition that Art.74(1) is mandatory and that there is never a constitutional vacuum in the executive.
- Essential to any answer on the real position of the President, because it removes the argument most often advanced for personal presidential rule.
- Pair it with Samsher Singh v State of Punjab 1974, which holds that the satisfaction required by the Constitution is that of the Council of Ministers. The two together establish that the President is a constitutional head at all times.
- Note the concept of a caretaker Ministry that follows from the holding, and the convention that such a Ministry confines itself to routine administration and avoids major policy decisions.
- Use in problems where a Prime Minister or Chief Minister advises dissolution after losing a confidence motion: the Ministry continues in office, so there is no urgency compelling the head of State to act on doubtful advice.
- The same reasoning applies to Art.163(1) for the States, so a State Council of Ministers likewise continues after the Assembly is dissolved.
Source
Source: (1971) 2 SCC 63; AIR 1971 SC 1002; Constitution Bench; leading authority that Art.74(1) is mandatory and admits of no interregnum; citation and bench checked against Indian Kanoon and reported sources, audit of 12 August 2026
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.