An Aftermath Of The Dissolution Of Parliament: A President's Stroke Or A Periodic Public Scrutiny?
Sandhya B, School of Law, Christ (Deemed To Be University), Pune.
"In short, dissolution draws the final curtain upon the existing House."
By virtue of Article 83(2) of the Constitution of India, The Dissolution of the House of the people after a certain period is a recurring process, while from a familiar vantage, it is seen as a tool to carve the democratic character of the country and a system of public scrutiny, the phrase "unless sooner dissolved" viewed from a precarious standpoint paves the way to the steep of political instability in the administrative regime. This research paper attempts to comprehend and analyze the impact of the Dissolution of parliament, whether periodical or premature, and how the Rajya Sabha being the permanent House, is not a subject matter of Dissolution per se but gets shaped by the domino effect of Dissolution that stalls all the primary legislative functions. While working on this premise, this paper attempts to analyze the Powers of the president in line with the Dissolution in light of various controversial views on the subject by highlighting contrary opinions during the parliamentary debates and critically reviewing the legislative logjam of premature Dissolution. As this paper moves forward to illustrate the Indian experience of Dissolution being more of arbitrary decisions based on vested political interests rather than a real solution to safeguard those of the country, we aim to answer the question "IS DISSOLUTION - A STROKE OF PRESIDENT'S PEN OR PERIODIC PUBLIC SCRUTINY?" and interpret through judicial pronouncements whether the ministerial Aid and Advice are at a tangent with the discretionary power vested upon the president in the Dissolution of Parliament.