Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Madhya Pradesh Governor’s call for a floor test and affirmed its directions for an immediate vote. A Governor may require an incumbent government to establish its majority on relevant objective material, subject to judicial review. Pending resignation or disqualification proceedings before the Speaker do not require postponement of that distinct inquiry. The Court rejected compulsory party access to unwilling legislators and postponement until all members attended or by-elections were held.
Issues
- Whether the Governor could require a floor test during an ongoing legislative assembly and whether the circumstances justified doing so.
- Whether pending resignation or disqualification proceedings required deferral of the vote.
- Whether legislators could be compelled to meet party representatives or the vote delayed pending attendance or by-elections.
Provisions considered
- Articles 163 and 174, Constitution of IndiaOrdinary aid and advice operates alongside a limited authority to require proof of majority on objective grounds, subject to judicial review. (¶¶ 22, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46)
- Article 190(3)(b) and proviso, Constitution of IndiaThe Speaker determines whether resignations are voluntary and genuine; seats become vacant upon acceptance. That process is distinct from testing collective confidence. (¶¶ 23, 24, 50, 51, 52)
Held
- A constitutional dispute is justiciable despite its political context. The Governor’s call for a trust vote is reviewable for relevant, germane objective material and cannot rest on extraneous considerations or be used to destabilise an elected government. (¶¶ 31, 41, 43, 46)
- Authority to require proof of majority is not confined to initial government formation. Confidence is determined on the floor of the House, not by the Governor’s own verification. During a session the power requires circumspection; absent exigent and compelling circumstances the ordinary no-confidence process should run its course. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42, 44, 45)
- Accepted resignations of six ministers, further purported resignations, the Chief Minister’s own communication favouring a test and failure to conduct one before adjournment supplied legitimate circumstances for requiring a prompt floor test. The affidavit of opposition members was not itself a pending no-confidence motion. (¶¶ 27, 29, 47, 48, 49)
- Determining voluntariness and genuineness of resignations and disqualification remains within the Speaker’s domain. The inquiry cannot range into extraneous motives, and the Speaker’s satisfaction is reviewable. A trust vote addresses the distinct issue of the government’s continuing collective confidence and need not await those decisions. (¶¶ 23, 24, 50, 51, 52)
- Legislators unwilling to meet party representatives could not be compelled to do so. Nor could a trust vote be conditioned on attendance of every member or completion of future by-elections. Protection of individual liberties and security for those choosing to attend was appropriate. (¶¶ 54, 55, 56, 57)
Result
WP(C) 439/2020 disposed of by affirming the 19 March 2020 directions for a single-agenda floor test on 20 March by 5 pm, voting by show of hands, videography and available live telecast, peaceful proceedings and protection of legislators’ liberty and security. WP(C) 449/2020 dismissed; impleadment and pending applications disposed of.