Floor Test Ordered: Supreme Court Resolves Madhya Pradesh Assembly Crisis (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 13 April 2020
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Hemant Gupta, J.

Can a Governor direct a floor test in a state legislative assembly that is already in session? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question amidst a political crisis in Madhya Pradesh. This case arose from a dispute over the resignations of 22 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and the Governor’s subsequent order for an immediate floor test.

The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta, delivered the judgment. The court analyzed the powers of the Governor and the legislative assembly, ultimately ordering a floor test to resolve the political deadlock.

Case Background

The Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly elections were held on November 28, 2018, with results declared on December 11, 2018. The Indian National Congress (INC) formed the government with the support of independent, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP), and Samajwadi Party (SP) members.

On March 10, 2020, Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leaders submitted resignation letters of 22 INC MLAs to the Speaker. The Chief Minister alleged that the BJP had taken 19 INC MLAs to Bengaluru on March 8, 2020, and held them incommunicado.

On March 14, 2020, the Governor directed the Chief Minister to conduct a floor test, stating that the government had lost the trust of the house. The Budget Session of the Assembly commenced on March 16, 2020, but was adjourned to March 26, 2020, without a floor test.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined several articles of the Indian Constitution:

• Article 168: States that every state shall have a legislature consisting of the Governor and one or two Houses.
• Article 174: Grants the Governor the power to summon, prorogue, and dissolve the state legislature.
• Article 175: Allows the Governor to address and send messages to the state legislature.
• Article 163(1): Stipulates that the Council of Ministers, headed by the Chief Minister, aids and advises the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except where the Governor is required to act in his discretion.
• Article 190(3)(b): Deals with the vacation of seats in the legislature, stating that a seat becomes vacant when a member resigns and the resignation is accepted by the Speaker. It also includes a proviso that the Speaker must be satisfied that the resignation is voluntary and genuine.

  “If a member of a House of the Legislature of a State — (b) resigns his seat by writing under his hand addressed to the speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, and his resignation is accepted by the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, his seat shall thereupon become vacant: Provided that in the case of any resignation referred to in sub-clause (b), if from information received or otherwise and after making such inquiry as he thinks fit, the Speaker or the Chairman, as the case may be, is satisfied that such resignation is not voluntary or genuine, he shall not accept such resignation.”

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were diverse, representing different perspectives on the constitutional issues at hand. Here’s a breakdown of the key submissions:

Submissions by MP Congress Party (Represented by Mr. Dushyant Dave):

• The petition was filed to maintain constitutional morality, ethos, and principles, emphasizing the fixed term of a legislative assembly.
• The 22 INC MLAs were “hijacked” and held captive in Bengaluru, violating the anti-defection provisions of the Constitution.
• The Governor should not have directed a floor test without verifying the voluntary nature of the resignations, which falls under the Speaker’s purview.
• If resignations are accepted, the trust vote should be postponed until by-elections are held.
• A trust vote cannot be directed by the Governor absent a motion of no confidence.

Submissions by Shivraj Singh Chouhan & Ors. (Represented by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi):

• 22 INC MLAs resigned on March 10, 2020, and the Governor rightly directed a floor test.
• The Governor’s decision was based on information about resignations, media coverage, and letters from the MLAs.
• The MP Congress Party’s petition is not maintainable, and the reliefs sought are not in the nature of habeas corpus.

Submissions by the 16 MLAs (Represented by Mr. Maninder Singh):

• An MLA has an absolute right to resign under Article 190 of the Constitution.
• The Speaker accepted the resignations of 6 MLAs but did not inquire into the remaining 16 resignations.
• Resignation and disqualification are distinct concepts.
• Judicial review of the Governor’s advice for a trust vote is not warranted.

Submissions by the Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Represented by Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi):

• The Court cannot direct the Speaker to accept the resignations of the 16 MLAs.
• The Governor has no authority to direct a floor test to establish a majority.
• The Speaker has wide discretion in matters of resignation under Article 190(3)(b).
• The determination of whether a resignation is voluntary lies within the Speaker’s discretion.
• The precedents for trust votes are in the context of fresh elections, not a “running” assembly.
• The government had already faced three no-confidence motions.

Submissions by the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh (Represented by Mr. Kapil Sibal):

• The Governor’s order for a floor test is unprecedented, as no one has claimed a majority.
• The observations in Nebam Rebia regarding the Governor’s authority are obiter.
• The Governor cannot order a floor test when the House is in session; the only remedy is a no-confidence motion.
• The Governor lacked objective satisfaction that the government had lost its majority.

Submissions by the State of Madhya Pradesh (Represented by Mr. Vivek Tankha):

• The Governor’s letter was premature as the resignations of 16 MLAs were not yet accepted.
• The Governor should not have formed an opinion that the government was in a minority.

Submissions by the Secretariat of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly (Represented by Mr. Harin P Raval):

• An affidavit by 54 BJP MLAs is likely to be treated as a motion of no confidence.

Submissions by the Governor of Madhya Pradesh (Represented by Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India):

• The Governor’s prerogative to determine if a government has majority support is beyond judicial review.
• The Governor only made a prima facie determination of doubt over the government’s majority.
• A floor test is the appropriate measure when there is doubt about a government’s majority.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the Governor is entrusted with the authority to call for a trust vote in the course of a “running assembly.”
2. Whether the Governor exercised this authority correctly.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the principles of parliamentary democracy and constitutional governance. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the collective responsibility of the government to the legislative assembly. The following points weighed in the mind of the Court:

• Constitutional Mandate: The Court stressed that the Governor’s actions must be within the bounds of the Constitution and must not undermine the democratic process.
• Objective Material: The Court noted that the Governor’s decision to call for a floor test was based on objective material, including the resignations of MLAs and the Chief Minister’s request for a floor test.
• Collective Responsibility: The Court highlighted the principle of collective responsibility, stating that the government must maintain the confidence of the legislative assembly.
• Expeditious Resolution: The Court emphasized the need for an expeditious resolution of political uncertainty through a floor test.
• Speaker’s Authority: The Court clarified that the floor test does not impinge on the Speaker’s authority to decide on resignations and disqualifications.

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, emphasizing that the Governor’s actions were not intended to displace a duly elected government but to ensure that the principle of collective responsibility is maintained. The Court also noted that the Governor’s decision was not immune from judicial review and must withstand scrutiny.

The Supreme Court’s decision was clear and accessible, emphasizing the need for a floor test to resolve the political uncertainty in Madhya Pradesh. The Court used legal precedents and constitutional principles to explain its decision.

The Court also addressed the issue of the “captive” MLAs, noting that the spectacle of rival political parties whisking away their political flock does little credit to the state of democratic politics. However, the Court did not issue any specific directions regarding access to the MLAs, emphasizing that it is for the MLAs to decide who they wish to associate with.

The Court also highlighted the importance of the Speaker’s role in deciding on resignations and disqualifications but clarified that these issues should not delay the floor test.

The Court quoted from the judgment:

• “The principle of democracy underlying our Constitution necessarily means that any such question should be decided on the floor of the House. The House is the place where the democracy is in action. It is not for the Governor to determine the said question on his own or on his own verification.”
• “In a situation where the Governor has reasons to believe that the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers have lost the confidence of the House, it is open to the Governor, to require the Chief Minister and his Council of Ministers to prove their majority in the House, by a floor test.”
• “The holding of a trust vote operates in a distinct field from the issue as to whether one or more individual members of the Legislative Assembly have embarked upon a voluntary act of resignation or have incurred the wrath of the Tenth Schedule.”

Key Takeaways

• The Governor can order a floor test in a running legislative assembly if there is a reasonable doubt about the government’s majority.
• The Governor’s decision must be based on objective material and not extraneous considerations.
• The floor test is the appropriate mechanism to determine if the government has the confidence of the House.
• The Speaker’s authority to decide on resignations and disqualifications is distinct from the floor test.
• The Court will not interfere with the individual rights of the MLAs to decide who they wish to associate with.
• The Court emphasized the need for an expeditious resolution of political uncertainty through a floor test.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly was to reconvene on March 20, 2020.
• The meeting was to be confined to a single agenda: whether the government of the incumbent Chief Minister continues to enjoy the confidence of the House.
• Voting was to take place by show of hands.
• The proceedings were to be video graphed and, if possible, live telecasted.
• All authorities were to ensure that there was no breach of law and order.
• The floor test was to be concluded by 5:00 PM on March 20, 2020.
• The Director General of Police, Karnataka, and Madhya Pradesh were to ensure that there was no restraint on the MLAs’ rights and liberties.

Specific Amendments Analysis

Not Applicable

Development of Law

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles laid down in SR Bommai and Nebam Rebia, clarifying that the Governor can order a floor test in a running assembly if there is a reasonable doubt about the government’s majority. The Court also clarified that the floor test does not impinge on the Speaker’s authority to decide on resignations and disqualifications.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Governor’s decision to order a floor test in theMadhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, emphasizing the need to maintain the principles of parliamentary democracy and constitutional governance. The Court’s judgment clarified the powers of the Governor and the legislative assembly, ensuring that the principle of collective responsibility is upheld.