] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *04.05.’21, LAW NOTES:* *“Judicial Review of the exercise of the Powers by the President (Art 74)”*

[5/3, 21:20] K. Selvaraj Mhc Advt: *04.05.’21, LAW NOTES:*

*“Judicial Review of the exercise of the Powers by the President (Art 74)”*

*I) All the Powers that are vested by the Constitution in the President, must be exercised on the advice of the* *Ministers, because of the mandatory requirement of Clause (1) of Article 74.*

*1)* [(1971) 2 SCC 63]
Rao U.N.R. Vs Indira Gandhi

*2)* [(1974) 2 SCC 831]
Samsher Singh Vs State of Punjab (7 judges)

*II) One of the canons of interpretation is that though the word ‘shall’ indicate an absolute imperative, the Court* *may acknowledge exceptions where the former Construction would lead to an absurdity*

*1)* [AIR 1967 SC 276]
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Azad Bharat Finance Co.

For instance:

i) *I choice of the Prime Minister (Art 75)*

In such a case, therefore, the word ‘shall’ in the amended Art 74 (1) cannot be construed as imperative.

ii) Constitutional requirement to act according to the advice of some other authority.

Where the constitution requires the President to take the advice of some other authority (a) the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of determination of the age of a High Court Judge under Article 217 (3), (b) the Election Commission on a question of disqualification of a Member of Parliament, under Art 103 (2).

*(To be continued)*
[5/4, 06:57] Sekarreporter1: .