The bench comprised of Y K Sabharwal, C J and K G Bala Krishnan, B N Agarwal Ashok Bhan and Arijit pasayant for hearing the case Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India.

Whether a dissolution of assembly under article 356(1) of the constitution of Indian be ordered to prevent the staying of claim by a political party on the ground that the majority was obtained by illegal means.

When the electorate gave the hung verdict in election of Bihar legislative assembly in 2006 the governor dissolved the legislature assembly after too months of declared results and declared the president rule under section 356(1).

The petitioner was the members of dissolved house who challenged the action of governor.

Decision of Supreme court:

Under article 356 of the constitution the dissolution of an assembly can be ordered on the satisfaction that a situation has a arisen in which the government of the state cannot be carried on in accordance with the constitution. Such satisfaction can be reached by the president on receipt of report from the governor of a state or otherwise. It is permissible to arrive at the satisfaction on receipt of the report from governor and on other material. Such a satisfaction can also reached on report of the governor in case the president has other relevant material for reaching the satisfaction contemplated by article 356.

The apex court in its judgment held that that governor misleads the president by his report which must be varied before accepting report. The proclamation of dissolving assembly was unconstitutional.