JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Amidst animated debate, all around both academic and political, on constitutional obligations and duties of the President and the Prime Minister, the petitioner, a practising Advocate of this Court approached by way of this petition for issue of writ of mandamus to the President to dismiss the Prime Minister and dissolve the Cabinet. Direction is sought to the Prime this omission on part of President in permitting Minister, as well, to obey Article 78 of the the Prime Minister to commit persistent Constitution. During hearing two applications default and disintegrate the nation at large were, also filed to intervene one by a member of National Executive of Yuva Janta and another by Secretary, Allahabad Lok Dal. was because of his bias in favour of both the Congress party of which he had been an ardent member and Sri Rajiv Gandhi as he due to kindness of Suit. Indira was elevated 2. Factual matrix for relief is a letter dated 3rd March, 1987 alleged to have been written Gandhi. The petitioner, therefore, urged that this Court which is under the Constitution its by the President Sri Giani Zail Singh, to the custodian may issue necessary directions to Prime Minister Sri Rajiv Gandhi, published the President to save the democracy and on 13th March, 1987 in the issue of Indian uphold its sanctity. Express, a daily English Newspaper published from New Delhi. Relying on recitals in the 3. Imputation of bias against the President, letter, for instance, 'even on certain important is not only fanciful but frivolous. It cannot domestic issues, I have not been kept informed furnish any foundation for any action in a on the matter relating to accords finalised in Court of law. Therefore, it is unnecessary to respect of Assam, Punjab and Misoram, and, dilate on it. 'it is also distressing that constitutional provisions regrading furnishing information 4. In Samsher Singh's case, (AIR 1974 SC to the President have not been consistently 2192) (supra) it was held that our Constitution followed,' the petitioners strenuously urged has been structured on British Parliamentary that the letter was self-explanatory which left and Cabinet form of Government. no iota of doubt that the Prime Minister did Consequently the President like the Sovereign' not discharge his mandatory obligations under in United Kingdom was a Constitutional head Article 78 of the Constitution. no iota of doubt that the Prime Minister did Consequently the President like the Sovereign' not discharge his mandatory obligations under in United Kingdom was a Constitutional head Article 78 of the Constitution. The petitioner only who could act with aid and advice of the submitted that failure of Prime Minister to Council of Ministers, except in certain communicate all decisions of Cabinet or to circumstances. The controversy was set at keep the President informed on matters of rest by 42nd Amendment of the Constitution national importance amount to omission to which amended Article 74 and provided that observe constitutional duties imposed on him the President shall act in discharge of his and once the President was satisfied about it functions on aid or advice of the Council of he should have dissolved the Council of Ministers. Even in Britain the Crown's Ministers as they hold office under clause (2) prerogative to dismiss Parliament on his own of Article 75 during his pleasure. Attempt has not been accepted as constitutional in'' was made to derive support from paragraphs 4th Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England, 1144, 1130 and 938 of Halsbury's Laws of Vol. VIII, paragraph 1130 the law is stated England, Vol. VIII (4th Edition) It was also thus, 'The sovereign may legally dissolve the submitted that the President being a part of Ministry at any time by dismissal, but the Parliament under Article 79 should have sent exercise of this power in order to assert the message to it under clause (2) of Article 86 sovereign's personal wishes opposite to the for consideration that the Prime Minister was wishes of Parliament, and ultimately of the not observing his duty. The petitioner urged that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1974 SC 2192 held that the President was 'not a glorified cipher......In short, the President like the King, has not merely been constitutionally romanticised but actually vested with a pervasive and persuasive role'. Yet. the President was not exercising the power vested in him thus violating the oath taken by him under Article 60 of the Constitution to, protect and defend the Constitution'. Yet. the President was not exercising the power vested in him thus violating the oath taken by him under Article 60 of the Constitution to, protect and defend the Constitution'. And this omission on part of President in permitting the Prime Minister to commit persistent default and disintegrate the nation at large was because of his bias in favour of both the Congress party of which he had been an ardent member and Sri Rajiv Gandhi as he was elevated due to Kindness of Smt. Indira Gandhi. The petitioner, therefore, urged that this Court which is under the Constitution its the President to save the democracy and uphold its sanctity. 3. Imputation of bias against the President is not only fanciful but frivolous. It cannot furnish any foundation for any action in a Court of law. Therefore, it is unnecessary to dilate on it. 4. In Samsher Singh's case ( AIR 1974 SC 2192 ) (supra) if was held that our Constitution has been structured on British Parliamentary and Cabinet form of Government. Consequently the President like the Sovereign in United Kingdom was a Constitutional head only who could act with aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in certain circumstances. The controversy was set at rest by 42nd Amendment of the Constitution which amended Article 74 and provided the President shall act in discharge of his functions on aid or advice of the Council of Ministers. Even in Britain the Crown's prerogative to dismiss Parliament on his own has not been accepted as constitutional in 4th Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. VIII, paragraph 1130 the law is stated thus, The sovereign's personal wishes opposite to the wishes of Parliament, and ultimately of the electorate, is clearly recognised as unconstitutional'. Attempt was made to distinguish between hereditary and elective offices held by Constitutional heads in England and India. That, However has no significance in view of the decision of Supreme Court is Samsher Singh's case (supra). 5. A Writ of Mandamus is a command or a direction issued by a Court to any person-or authority to perform his public duty. Attempt was made to distinguish between hereditary and elective offices held by Constitutional heads in England and India. That, However has no significance in view of the decision of Supreme Court is Samsher Singh's case (supra). 5. A Writ of Mandamus is a command or a direction issued by a Court to any person-or authority to perform his public duty. As far back as 1841 it was held in R. v. Powell, (1841) 1 QB 352, 'That there can be no mandamus to the Sovereign, there can be no doubt, both because there would be an incongruity on the Queen commanding herself to do an act, and also because disobedience to the Writ of Mandamus is to be enforced by attachment'. A Chief Executive in Parliamentary system, normally, is not subject to judicial check. He is accountable for performance of duties of his office to people and not to any Court. Article 361(1) of the Constitution which provides that 'The: President........shall not be answerable to any Court for the exercise and performance of the duties of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in exercise and performance of those powers and duties' is based on this principle. It imposes blanket ban and excludes jurisdiction of Courts completely to scrutinise performance or omissions to perform duty by the President except in the circumstances mentioned in other sub-clauses. The Courts like Legislature and Executive also function under the Constitution. They cannot transgress the limit and assume for itself the role of upholding the Constitution even where it is forbidden. It was vehemently urged that Article 361 guaranteed personal immunity only. It did not extend to failure of Constitutional obligations. It was submitted that it was recognised both' in England and this country that the Chief Executive is empowered to act in his discretion as well as pointed out in Samsher Singh's case. Apart from that there may be circumstances for instance even though the Prime Minister has lost majority in the house but he may not resign. It was urged that in somewhat similarly worded provision in Australian Constitution which too is founded on English pattern the Australian President dissolved the Parliament on number of occasions. According to petitioner the immunity to President does not extend beyond the actions taken by him on advice of council of Ministers. It was urged that in somewhat similarly worded provision in Australian Constitution which too is founded on English pattern the Australian President dissolved the Parliament on number of occasions. According to petitioner the immunity to President does not extend beyond the actions taken by him on advice of council of Ministers. Consequently the action or omission of President in respect of those actions which are in his discretion or in which he can act on his own can be examined by Courts and on failure to do so direction can be issued to him. The petitioner attempted to support his argument by comparing the language' of Article 361(1) with Article 362(2) and (3) and urged that expression . 'shall not be answerable to any Court' was different than 'no proceeding shall be instituted'. Attention was invited to Articles 105(1), 194(2), 122(2), 212 and 163(3) and it was urged that wherever the bar was intended to be absolute it was said so clearly. The argument appears to proceed on complete misapprehension of Article 361(1). It affords absolute immunity to the President. He is not answerable to any Court for exercise of his powers and duties. In a written Constitution with specific field carved out for Legislature, Executive and Judiciary and overstepping by any wing may lead to erosion or even destruction of democratic system. Since the President is not answerable to any court for any act or omission committed by him in discharge of his duties as Chief Executive no writ or direction can be issued) to him. 6. Even the claim of petitioner that direction should be issued to the Prime Minister to obey Article 78 of Constitution appears to be misconceived. Role of Judiciary under the Constitution is visualised to be an, 'arm of social revolution' not a forum for political mechanism. Constitutional duties and obligations of the President and the Prime Minister in a Parliamentary form of Government flourish on conventions and not on regulation and directions by Courts. Literal construction of any Article in the Constitution may at times give rise to misapprehension and misunderstanding. But they have to be understood and viewed in the light of inherent philosophy of Parliamentary form of Government, that Executive is the strength' of democracy, the Principal architect of which is the 'real executive' and not the 'Chief Executive.' 7. Literal construction of any Article in the Constitution may at times give rise to misapprehension and misunderstanding. But they have to be understood and viewed in the light of inherent philosophy of Parliamentary form of Government, that Executive is the strength' of democracy, the Principal architect of which is the 'real executive' and not the 'Chief Executive.' 7. Much was attempted to be built round the word 'shall' used in Article 78. 'They are, however, powers of giving advice or counselling delay or the need for caution' (Seervai) such duties and obligations are incapable of being enforced in a Court of law. 8. A Writ of Mandamus can be issued to vindicate grievance of an aggrieved party if he has a right under the Statute and there is a corresponding obligation on 'public authority which he fails to carry out (Shivendra Bahadur Dr. v. Governing Body of Nalanda College, AIR 1962 SC 1210 , Amrit Lal v. Collector, AIR 1975 SC 538 , Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 964 ). Although the concept of locus standi has been widened In S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 149 , and the right to invoke judicial remedy for enforcement of Constitutional obligations had been recognised by public spirited individuals acting pro bono publico but the activating force should-be vindication of cause of justice and not for political motivation or other oblique consideration. Whatever be the objective of this petition but it does not withstand the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court either in S.F. Gupta's case or in D.C. Wadhwa v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 579 . In absence of infringement of any right in favour of petitioner he is not entitled to seek its enforcement. It is unnecessary to 'delve any further on this issue. 9. We were assisted by Sri N.B. Singh the senior Standing Counsel for Union of India. 10. For reasons stated above the petition is dismissed without calling upon opposite parties to enter appearance.