Why in News?
The Supreme Court (SC) directed the Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to ensure that the floor test be held in the Assembly soon.
What did happen?
- The Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress or the Maharashtra Development Alliance (MDA) approached the SC against the decision of Governor to administer the oath of office to Devendra Fadnavis and Ajit Pawar.
- The SC ordered an immediate floor test in Maharashtra to be held by 27th November evening.
- But, these motions were overtaken later by the resignations of Fadnavis and Pawar.
- Now, the Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) of MDA elected Uddhav Thackeray as their leader and the Chief Minister.
What is the significance of the previous SC rulings?
- Several SC observations in its order are, and will be relevant for this and similar situations involving the role of the Governor in a hung House in the future.
- The most important of these references is the ‘S R Bommai case’.
- The historic judgment was by the nine-judge Bench in SR Bommai vs Union of India in 1994.
- It laid down the supremacy of the floor test in determining the support enjoyed by the party in power.
What is the S R Bommai case?
- In 1985, the Janata Party won the Assembly elections in Karnataka, and formed the government under Chief Minister Ramakrishna Hegde.
- In 1988, Hegde was replaced by SR Bommai, also of the Janata Party.
- That year, the Janata Party merged with the Lok Dal, forming the Janata Dal, and new members were inducted into Bommai’s Ministry.
- Petition - In September 1988, an MLA from the Janata Dal defected from the party.
- He presented a letter to Governor along with petitions from 19 other MLAs stating their decision to withdraw support to the Bommai government.
- President’s rule - The Rajiv Gandhi government at the Centre dismissed the state government using Article 356.
- It did this without giving Bommai a chance to prove his majority, and imposed President’s Rule.
- The Karnataka decision was seen as controversial, and more such examples followed across India.
- Other examples - In 1988, the Nagaland government was dismissed on the basis of a report sent by the Governor to the President.
- In 1991, the President issued a proclamation dismissing the Meghalaya government on grounds of unconstitutional governance.
- The Assembly was dissolved immediately after.
What was the Supreme Court ruling?
- The nine-judge Bench in the Bommai case adjudicated on a range of issues around the constitutional limitations of the use of Article 356.
- The court laid down a number of guidelines to curb the Centre’s capacity to dismiss a state government.
- The SC ruling laid down the law that the only way to determine support enjoyed by a particular state government would be by means of a floor test.
- The SC ruled that the validity of a proclamation of President’s Rule is subject to judicial review.
- It said that the only time the President shall have unconditional powers to dissolve a state government is when there is a complete breakdown of constitutional machinery.
What is the significance of the judgment?
- The judgment also underlined the secular nature of the Constitution in the wake of the Babri demolition.
- It said that a party cannot resort to religion for the sake of gaining power and, if found to be indulging in religious politics, could be acted against using Article 356.
- Since the Constitution came into force, President’s Rule under Article 356 has been imposed on states on over 100 occasions.
- These instances declined considerably after the S R Bommai ruling.
- Apart from an assertive judiciary, the emergence of coalition governments with representation from regional parties in the 1990s also checked the trend.
Source: The Indian Express, India Today
