The Supreme Court will today hear a petition filed by former Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and BJP MLAs, seeking a trust vote in the state Assembly against the Kamal Nath government.
The Congress-led government was pushed to the brink following the resignation of 22 MLAs, who are believed to be loyalists of former Congress leader Jyotiraditya Scindia who defected to the BJP. The opposition BJP, claiming that the Congress-led government had lost majority, had pushed for immediate floor test. A delegation of the party met the governor on Saturday to make a demand in this regard. The BJP leaders said that a government in minority does not have the constitutional right to convene a budget session or get the governor's address delivered.
Madhya Pradesh Governor Lalji Tandon had directed Chief Minister Kamal Nath to seek a trust vote in the Assembly soon after the governor's address in the House today. The governor had stipulated that the floor test should be completed today and cannot be adjourned, delayed or suspended. But, Chief Minister Kamal Nath had responded to Tandon claiming that the opposition BJP was holding the rebel MLAs captive in Bengaluru and a floor test would be undemocratic in the absence of these legislators. Speaker N.P. Prajapati, against the governor's wishes, adjourned the Assembly soon after Tandon's speech.
Has the Supreme Court ordered for immediate floor tests before?
There are precedents. Take the case of the to the 9-judge Supreme Court bench decision in S.R. Bommai case in 1994, in which it had said that "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."
In 2018, in Karnataka, when the Congress moved the apex court against a governor decision to appoint Yediyurappa the chief minister, Justices A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde and Ashok Bhushan had ordered for a floor test in a day's time. The verdict came on a petition filed by a group of Congress and JD(S) lawmakers after the governor invited BJP, the single largest party, to form government in the state. "Only alternative is a floor test for tomorrow [May 19, 2018], we can’t give more time," Justice Sikri said. "It’s just the number game, who enjoys the majority should be invited to form the government," he said. Similarly, in 2017, in Goa, when the Congress moved against BJP government formation, the Supreme Court had ordered a floor test in 48 hours. Parrikar's swearing-in ceremony was held at Panaji at 5pm on a Tuesday. The floor test was stipulated for Thursday. Singhvi had alleged during the hearing then that the BJP was indulging in horse-trading.
What happened in Uttarakhand in 2016?
In 2016, former Uttarakhand Chief Minister Harish Rawat had moved the Supreme Court after the Modi government dismissed the then Congress government and imposed -president's rule after nine Congress MLAs sided with the BJP on a bill. The court ordered the former chief minister of Uttarakhand to take a 'vote of confidence' on the floor of the Assembly, quashing the president's rule. Rawat came back to power in the trust vote. The rebel MLAs were subsequently disqualified by the speaker under the anti-defection law, a decision that was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court.
What happened in Arunachal Pradesh in 2016?
Here, the Supreme Court warned the governor against arbitrary exercise of power. In 2016, the apex court had held as unconstitutional the decision of Arunachal Pradesh governor J.P. Rajkhowa to advance the floor test. Rajkhowa’s move to advance the assembly session from January 14, 2016 to December 16, 2015 had resulted in rebel Congress MLAs, backed by the BJP and independents, coming to power after dethroning the Congress government.
A five-judge Constitution bench headed by the then CJI J.S. Khehar had restored the dismissed Congress government led by Nabam Tuki in Arunachal Pradesh and spoken about the powers of governor in the state.
"It is not within his domain to interfere with the functions of the speaker, as the governor is neither a guide, nor a mentor to the Speaker and has no role whatsoever in the removal of speaker or deputy speaker...Both the governor and the speaker have independent constitutional responsibilities," the bench had said. It had held that the governor cannot be an "overriding authority" over the people's representatives and there can be no interference at his behest so long as the democratic process in the assembly functioned through a majority government.
-Inputs from PTI
