Part 19 of Indian Constitution: Miscellaneous Constitutional Provisions (Articles 361-367)

Part 19 of Indian Constitution contains a set of diverse provisions dealing with various constitutional matters. It primarily provides legal immunity to the President and Governors, stating they are not answerable to any court for their official actions during their tenure. It also safeguards the publication of parliamentary and legislative proceedings, disqualifies certain individuals from holding remunerative political posts, and addresses the rights of former rulers of Indian States. Explore other Constitutional Articles.

Part 19 of Indian Constitution Overview

Part 19 of Indian Constitution encompassing Article 361 to Article 367. It includes various provisions for immunity and privileges of the President and Governors and safeguard them from legal proceedings for actions within their official roles. It protects the publication of parliamentary proceedings and prohibits disqualified members from holding remunerative political posts. It also abolishes privileges for former rulers of princely states. It also restricts judicial intervention in disputes over pre-constitutional treaties and allows the President to regulate laws for major ports and aerodromes. The provisions under Part 19 of safeguards governmental authority, clarify official protections and outline procedural parameters for state compliance with Union policies. 

Download 5 key take aways on Part 19 of Indian Constitution Free PDF

Part 19 of Indian Constitution titled ‘Miscellaneous Provisions’ outlines various constitutional provisions that deal with a range of issues, including the legal immunity of key officials, the protection of legislative proceedings and the rights of former rulers Following is a brief overview of the components in Part 19 of Constitution:

Several landmark judgments have interpreted the provisions under Part 19 of Indian Constitution especially regarding the imposition of President’s Rule under Article 356 and Article 365. The following decisions have played an important role in defining the limits of executive power and upholding federal principles.

In State of Rajasthan v. Union of India (1977) the Supreme Court affirmed the wide powers of the Centre under Article 365 to impose President’s Rule. It held that the scope for judicial review in such matters is limited and reinforced the unitary tendencies within Indian federalism and permitted the dismissal of State governments for failing to comply with constitutional obligations.

The landmark judgement S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) laid down limitations on the misuse of Article 356. The Court held that the imposition of President’s Rule is not beyond judicial review and must be based on objective material.

In the Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) the Supreme Court declared the dissolution of the Bihar Legislative Assembly as unconstitutional. It restated that judicial review applies to such decisions and underscored that President’s Rule should only follow a genuine constitutional breakdown.