Ashoke Sen Gupta v.

Union of India: In ministry formation a person may be either a member

of parliament or has the potentiality to be so elected within six months of his appointment and
who can command the support of majority of the member of Lok Sabha.

A Sanjeevini v State of Madras: It explained this principle and held that the cabinet is
responsible to the legislature for every action in any of the ministries. This is the essence of
joint responsibility.

A registered Society v. Union of India: here the rule ensures that the councils of ministers
works as team as a unit and as a body of commands the confidence of house, and that cabinet
nets decision are the joint decisions of all ministers.

Blackburn v Attorney-General: where held that Treaty-making powers rest in the Crown,
acting on the advice of its Ministers and their actions cannot be challenged or questioned in
the courts.

Bates Case: The Case of Impositions) where held that Supremacy of Parliament the Royal
Prerogative used today by ministers as Orders in Council. In this case where King nominal
head King has prerogative power to regulate trade - an aspect of foreign affairs.

Dattaji Chirandas v. State of Gujar1 held that collective responsibility means all minister
share collective responsibility in any case means even any particular minister does not take
part but still responsibility lies. It also held as unanimity and confidentiality.

Edinburgh & Dalkeith Railway Co v Wauchop supremacy like where no judicial challenge of
Act of Parliament 1911 allowed.

Indra Nehru Gandhi v Raj Narain : 1975 held that exercising his judicial power and SC held
that clause (4) of the Constitution 39th Amendment Act, 1975 as unconstitutional and void on
the ground that it was outright denial of the Right to Equality enshrined in Article 14

1
AIR 1999 Guj. 48
I.C. Golaknath and Ors. v. State of Punjab:

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

Jayantilal Amrit Lal Shodhan v. F.N. Rana and Ors recognized that the Constitution has not
made an absolute or rigid division of functions between the three agencies of the State.

PU Myllai Hlychho v. State of Mizoram; Based on Collective responsibility and said work as
unity.

R.C. Copper v. Union of India supreme court said under constitution, the president being
the constitutional head, normally acts in all matters including the promulgation of an
ordinance on the advice of his councils of minister.

Rameshwar Prasad (VI) v. Union of India: held no court is concerned with what advice was
tendered by the Minister to the president

Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain like holder of ministry gets
opportunity to abuse or misuse the office. Each office is personally and collectively
responsible for action and its policies. He is accountable and answerable to the people. The
legal and moral responsibility for the act omissions, duties performed and policy laid down
on the minister department. Accordingly he is indictable for his conduct or omission or
misappropriation. The councils of minister is jointly and severally responsible to the
legislature.

Smasher Singh v. State of Punjab held that it is a fundamental principle of English

constitution law that minister accept responsibility for every executive acts. Where observes
that this English constitutional law is incorporated in our constitution. The Indian constitution
envisages a parliamentary and responsible form of government at the centre and in the state
not a presidential form of government.
S. N. Ghosh v. B.L. Cotton mills held that minister is regarded as an officer subordinate to the
president and therefore president can exercise his executive authority through ministers.
Article 53 which states that executive power shall vest in president.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India: held that No court in concerned an ministerial advice towards
President.
S.P Anand, Indore v. H.D. Deve Gowda it was held that even though a Prime Minister is not a
member of either house of Parliament, once he is appointed he is also his Ministers become
answerable to the house and the principle of collective responsibility governs democratic
process.

S. R. Chaudharu v. State of Punjab : held that person who is not member of a House of
Parliament is appointed as a minister. He resigns after six months, as required by Article
75(5) as he fails to become a member of a house of parliament in the meantime.

State of Jammu Kashmir v. Bakshi Gulam Mohd: the principle of collective responsibility
means councils of ministers is responsible as a body for the general conduct of affairs of
government. It held that the rule ensures that the councils of minister worked as a team, as a
body commands the confidence of house, are joint decisions of all ministers.

State of Karnataka v. Union of India: held that the principle of collective responsibility led to
work as a team in unity so share same ideology.

U.N.R Rao v. Indira Gandhi: