• Eknath Shinde will continue to be the chief minister of Maharashtra after the Supreme Court held on May 11 that it cannot reinstate the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government headed by Uddhav Thackeray since the Shiv Sena leader chose to resign without facing the floor test in the wake of a rebellion in his party.

• Shinde, who led the rebellion in the Shiv Sena against Thackeray sparking a nine-day political crisis in June 2022, later tied up with the BJP to form a new government.

• The unanimous verdict by a five-judge Constitution bench came as a relief for Shinde even as it censured former Maharashtra governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari over his decision calling upon Thackeray to prove his majority in the Assembly based on a request by the Shinde faction of the Sena. 

• Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, who wrote the 141-page verdict on behalf of the bench, however, said the governor was justified in inviting Shinde to form the government, a day after the resignation of Thackeray.

• The bench, also comprising Justices M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P.S. Narasimha, said the governor ought to apply his mind to the communication (or any other material) before him to assess whether a government has lost the confidence of the House.

What is a floor test?

A floor test is a legislative procedure through which an incumbent government that is suspected to have lost majority is required to prove it still retains the confidence of the House. The chief minister has to move a vote of confidence and win a majority among those present and voting. If the confidence motion fails to pass, the chief minister has to resign.

What is the S.R. Bommai case?

• Supreme Court’s judgment in the S.R. Bommai vs Union of India case of 1994 is often referred to regarding floor tests.

• S.R. Bommai was the chief minister of the Janata Dal government in Karnataka. His government was dismissed on April 21, 1989 under Article 356 of the Constitution and President’s rule was imposed.

• The dismissal was on the grounds that the Bommai government had lost majority following large-scale defections. Governor  P. Venkatasubbaiah refused to give Bommai an opportunity to test his majority in the Assembly despite the latter presenting him with a copy of the resolution passed by the Janata Dal Legislature Party.

• The governor sent another report to the President reiterating that the chief minister had lost the confidence of the majority of the House and recommended action under Article 356(1). Accordingly, on April 21, 1989, the President issued a proclamation, dismissed the state government, and dissolved the Assembly.

• Bommai went to the Supreme Court against the governor’s decision to recommend President’s rule.

• In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court put an end to the arbitrary dismissal of state governments under Article 356 by spelling out restrictions. “The power conferred by Article 356 is a conditioned power; it is not an absolute power to be exercised by the discretion of the President,” it said.

• The verdict said the president should exercise the power only after his proclamation (imposing his/her rule) is approved by both Houses of Parliament. Till then, the court said, the president can only suspend the Legislative Assembly by suspending the provisions of Constitution relating to the Legislative Assembly.

• The case became one of the most cited whenever hung Assemblies were returned and parties scrambled to form a government.

Summoning the House

• The power of the governor to summon the House under Article 174 must be exercised on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers. 

• Rule 95 of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Rules stipulates that a member who wishes to move a motion of no-confidence in the Council of Ministers shall do so by a notice in writing. 

• If the motion is admitted by the Speaker and the Assembly is in session, leave to move the motion must be granted not later than two days from the date of the notice. However, if the notice is received when the Assembly is not in session, leave to move the motion shall be granted within two days from the commencement of the session.

• To avert a no-confidence motion, the incumbent government may not advise the governor to convene a session of the Assembly, and the Speaker may adjourn the sitting of the House to prevent voting for granting leave to move a motion of no-confidence. 

• If the Speaker and the government attempt to circumvent a no-confidence motion, the governor would be justified in exercising the power under Article 174 without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.

What the SC said about floor test in Maharashtra?

• The power of the governor to act without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is of an extraordinary nature. The exercise of such power has ramifications on parliamentary democracy. Hence, the ambit of the exercise of such power by the governor must be calibrated to meet the exigencies of situations where the governor is satisfied on the basis of objective material that there is sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of their extraordinary power. 

• The discretion to call for a floor test is not an unfettered discretion but one that must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law.

• The governor had no objective material on the basis of which he could doubt the confidence of the incumbent government. The resolution on which the governor relied did not contain any indication that the MLAs wished to exit from the MVA government. 

• The communication expressing discontent on the part of some MLAs is not sufficient for the governor to call for a floor test. The governor ought to apply his mind to the communication (or any other material) before him to assess whether the government seemed to have lost the confidence of the House.

• Once a government is democratically elected in accordance with law, there is a presumption that it enjoys the confidence of the House. There must exist some objective material to dislodge this presumption.

• The political imbroglio in Maharashtra arose as a result of party differences within the Shiv Sena. However, the floor test cannot be used as a medium to resolve internal party disputes or intra party disputes. 

• The governor is a constitutional functionary who derives his authority from the Constitution. The governor must be cognizant of the constitutional bounds of the power vested in him. He cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the Constitution or a law made under it. Neither the Constitution nor the laws enacted by Parliament provide for a mechanism by which disputes amongst members of a particular political party can be settled. They certainly do not empower the governor to enter the political arena and play a role (however minute) either in inter-party disputes or in intra-party disputes.

Manorama Yearbook app is now available on Google Play Store and iOS App Store