Supreme Court Orders Floor Test in Maharashtra Political Crisis: Shiv Sena vs. Union of India (26 November 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2019

Citation: Not Available in the source

Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Ashok Bhushan, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can a Governor’s decision to invite a political party to form a government be challenged when there are claims of majority support from another alliance? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question amidst a political crisis in Maharashtra, ordering an immediate floor test to determine which party held the majority. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Ashok Bhushan, and Sanjiv Khanna.

Case Background

The case arose from the political situation in Maharashtra following the 2019 Legislative Assembly elections. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Shiv Sena, who had a pre-poll alliance, contested the elections jointly. However, after the results were declared on 24 October 2019, no single party secured a majority.

The Governor of Maharashtra initially invited the BJP, the single largest party, to form the government on 9 November 2019. The BJP declined on 10 November 2019 after its alliance with Shiv Sena broke down. Subsequently, the Governor invited Shiv Sena, and then the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), but these attempts were also unsuccessful. Ultimately, the Governor recommended President’s Rule on 12 November 2019, which was imposed on the same day.

During this period, Shiv Sena, NCP, and the Indian National Congress (INC) were in discussions to form a coalition government. However, on 23 November 2019, the President’s Rule was revoked at 5:47 a.m., and the Governor invited Respondent No. 3 to form the government. The oath of office was administered to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 at around 8:00 a.m. on the same day.

Aggrieved by the Governor’s actions, the Petitioners approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution on 23 November 2019, seeking to declare the Governor’s invitation to Respondent No. 3 as unconstitutional and to direct the Governor to invite the Maha Vikas Aghadi alliance (comprising Shiv Sena, INC, and NCP) to form the government.

Timeline:

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The Petitioners argued that the Governor’s action of revoking President’s Rule at 5:47 a.m. and administering the oath of office at around 8:00 a.m. appeared to be a mala fide act.
• They contended that Respondent No. 4 was never authorized to form an alliance with Respondent No. 3.
• The Petitioners asserted that Respondent No. 3 must prove his majority on the floor of the House through an open ballot, captured in a video recording to ensure transparency. They also requested that the senior-most member be appointed as pro-tem Speaker.
• It was submitted that the letter presented to the Governor, allegedly signed by 54 elected members of the NCP, was unaddressed and did not have a covering letter or any other statement promising their alliance to the BJP.
• The Petitioners argued that when both sides are agreeable to a floor test, there is no reason to defer it.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The Respondents argued that the Governor’s satisfaction was based on the material placed before him, indicating that Respondent No. 3 enjoyed the support of 105 BJP members, 54 NCP members, and 11 independent members.
• They contended that the Governor had no reason to disbelieve the letters provided by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and was not obligated to conduct a roving enquiry.
• The Respondents argued that the Court cannot monitor the proceedings of the House as per Article 212 of the Constitution.
• They submitted that while a floor test is imperative, the Court cannot sit in appeal over the Governor’s order to set the dates for the floor test, as it is the discretion of the Speaker.
• It was also contended that the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in the present matter and the Governor’s independence should be respected.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in the order. However, the following issues were considered:

1. Whether the Governor’s decision to invite Respondent No. 3 to form the Government on 23.11.2019 was constitutional.
2. Whether a floor test should be conducted immediately to determine if the Chief Minister has the majority support.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly and Union of India v. Shri Harish Chandra Singh Rawat to emphasize the need for constitutional morality and to ensure that democracy prevails.
• The Court cited S.R. Bommai v. Union of India to underscore that the floor of the House is the primary mechanism to test the confidence of the Ministry.
• The recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission, Rajmannar Committee, and the Committee of Five Governors were cited to support the view that the test of confidence should be through a vote in the assembly.
• The Court relied on Jagdambika Pal v. Union of India, Anil Kumar Jha v. Union of India, Union of India v. Sh. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat, Chandrakant Kavlekar v. Union of India, and G. Parmeshwara v. Union of India to justify the direction for an immediate floor test and to outline the procedure to be followed.
• The Court clarified that Article 212 of the Constitution does not apply to the present case, as it pertains to the validity of proceedings in the Legislature, not the Governor’s actions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold democratic values and ensure a stable government. The Court was concerned about the potential for horse-trading and the uncertainty caused by the delay in conducting a floor test. The Court emphasized the importance of transparency and the need to resolve the political crisis swiftly through a floor test. The Court also noted that the elected members had not yet taken oath, further necessitating immediate action.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment (Continued)

The Supreme Court, in its interim order, emphasized the need to protect democratic values and prevent any unlawful practices, such as horse-trading. The Court noted that a delay in conducting a floor test could lead to further uncertainty and instability. The Court observed that the elected members of the Legislative Assembly were yet to take oath, further necessitating an immediate floor test.

The Court referred to several precedents, including S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, which underscored that the floor of the House is the only way to test the confidence of the Ministry. The Court also relied on previous orders in cases like Jagdambika Pal v. Union of India and Anil Kumar Jha v. Union of India, where similar directions were issued for conducting floor tests.

The Court rejected the contention that it cannot monitor the proceedings of the House, clarifying that Article 212 of the Constitution does not apply to the present case. The Court also rejected the argument that it cannot sit in appeal over the Governor’s order, emphasizing the need to ensure a stable government through a transparent floor test.

The Court directed that a pro-tem Speaker be appointed immediately, that all elected members take oath on 27 November 2019, and that a floor test be conducted immediately thereafter. The Court also ordered that the proceedings be live-telecast to ensure transparency. The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the need to uphold democratic principles and to ensure a swift resolution to the political crisis.

The Court quoted from Union of India v. Shri Harish Chandra Singh Rawat, stating: “This Court, being the sentinel on the qui vive of the Constitution is under the obligation to see that the democracy prevails and not gets hollowed by individuals.”

The Court also quoted from S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, stating: “wherever a doubt arises whether the Council of Ministers has lost the confidence of the House, the only way of testing it is on the floor of the House.”

The Court further quoted the observations of the Committee of Five Governors, stating: “the test of confidence in the Ministry should normally be left to a vote in the assembly… Where the Governor is satisfied, by whatever process or means, that the Ministry no longer enjoys majority support, he should ask the Chief Minister to face the Assembly and prove his majority within the shortest possible time…”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of conducting a floor test to determine the majority support in the Legislative Assembly.
• The Court has shown its willingness to intervene in political crises to uphold democratic values and prevent unlawful practices like horse-trading.
• The Governor’s decisions are subject to judicial review, especially when there are concerns about transparency and fairness.
• The Court has reiterated the importance of constitutional morality for constitutional functionaries.
• The floor test must be conducted in a transparent manner, with live telecast to ensure public confidence.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

1. A Pro-tem Speaker shall be appointed immediately.
2. All elected members shall take oath on 27.11.2019, before 5:00 p.m.
3. Immediately after the oath, the Pro-tem Speaker shall conduct the floor test.
4. The floor test shall not be conducted by secret ballot.
5. The proceedings have to be live telecast.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that in situations of political uncertainty and claims of majority support, the most appropriate way to resolve the issue is through an immediate floor test. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of the floor test as the primary mechanism to prove majority and emphasized that the Governor’s decisions are subject to judicial review, especially when there are concerns about transparency and fairness. This case reinforces the Court’s commitment to upholding democratic values and constitutional morality. There is no change in the previous position of the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s intervention in the Maharashtra political crisis highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding democratic values and ensuring transparency in governance. By ordering an immediate floor test, the Court aimed to resolve the political uncertainty and prevent any unlawful practices. The judgment reinforces the principle that the floor of the House is the primary mechanism to test the confidence of the Ministry and that the Governor’s actions are subject to judicial scrutiny. The directions given by the Court ensure a transparent and swift resolution to the crisis.