{"id":228242,"date":"2020-04-13T14:29:16","date_gmt":"2020-04-13T08:59:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=228242"},"modified":"2020-04-17T09:46:13","modified_gmt":"2020-04-17T04:16:13","slug":"madhya-pradesh-governor-had-the-constitutional-authority-to-order-floor-test-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/04\/13\/madhya-pradesh-governor-had-the-constitutional-authority-to-order-floor-test-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Madhya Pradesh Governor had the Constitutional authority to order floor test: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: The bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ has held that the Madhya Pradesh Governor was right in ordering floor test after the State Government lost majority. The bench said,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cin a situation where the Governor has reasons to believe that the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister has lost the confidence of the House, constitutional propriety requires that the issue be resolved by calling for a floor test. The Governor in calling for a floor test cannot be construed to have acted beyond the bounds of constitutional authority.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In a detailed judgment, the Court also explained the scope of the power of the Governor and the law revolving around floor tests.<\/p>\n

On the timing of directing a trust vote<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Court explained that in directing a trust vote, the Governor does not favour a particular political party and that it is inevitable that the specific timing of a trust vote may tilt the balance towards the party possessing a majority at the time the trust vote is directed. The Court, however, added,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cwhere the evidence indicates that circumstances of violence and coercion exist that would undermine a free and fair vote in the assembly, the Governor and the court must take measures to ensure that the sanctity of the trust vote is maintained.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It, hence, held that in the present case there existed no extraordinary circumstances for the Governor to determine that a trust vote was not the appropriate course of action on 16 March 2020.<\/p>\n

On short-circuiting the Speaker\u2019s discretion<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Court noticed that neither the Governor, nor for that matter this Court, has the power to impinge upon the authority of the Speaker to take a decision on the said issue, however, it refused to accept the submission that holding of a trust vote would short-circuit the jurisdiction of the Speaker on a matter of resignation and disqualification. It explained that holding of trust vote is a matter which can brook no delay since the authority of the government presided over by the Chief Minister depends on the Council of Ministers continuing to have the faith of the legislative body as a collective entity. Particularly where the Members resigned in an expression of a lack of faith in the existing government, the convening of a floor test is the surest method of assessing the impact of the resignations on the collective will of the house<\/strong><\/span>. <\/em>It concluded by holding that,<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cnothing prevents the Speaker from taking a decision either on matters of resignation or disqualification despite convening of a trust vote.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

On seeking Access to the \u2018Captive\u2019 Members<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

On the plea that access be made to the twenty-two Members who have been elected on the ticket of the INC were \u201cspirited away\u201d to Bengaluru, the Court held that in order to facilitate a trust vote for which the twenty-two Members should be free to participate in the house should they opt to do so, directions in that regard should be issued both to the Director General of Police of Karnataka as well as to the Director General of Police of Madhya Pradesh.<\/p>\n

The Court, however, said that it cannot issue a direction mandating that a trust vote cannot be convened if any one or more Members do not remain present in the House.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cWhether or not to remain present is for the individual Members to decide and they would, necessarily be accountable for the decisions which they take, both to their political party and to their constituents.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Factual Timeline<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n