Governor must bear in mind that purpose of ordering trust vote is not to displace governments: SC on Madhya Pradesh Political Crisis

The Supreme Court today pronounced its judgment detailing the reasons for ordering a floor test in the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, in view of the recent political crisis in the state [Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Speaker, Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly]..The political crisis, triggered by the resignation of 22 members of the Congress party in Madhya Pradesh, was brought to an end after the Supreme Court directed for a floor test on March 19..[Breaking] Madhya Pradesh Political Crisis: Supreme Court directs Floor Test to be held on March 20.By way of background, after the ex-Congress legislators were “taken captive”, BJP leaders approached the Speaker of the Assembly on March 10 and tendered the resignation letters of the captive MLAs.Then Chief Minister Kamal Nath, on March 13, addressed a letter to Governor Lalji Tandon, offering to hold a floor test once the MLAs are released. The Congress then issued a whip to ensure the presence of all its members at the budget session of the state assembly which was to commence on March 16.Governor Tandon then sent a letter to Nath, urging him to gain the trust vote on the floor of the House..When the session commenced on March 16, the MLAs belonging to the Madhya Pradesh Congress were absent. The Governor once again wrote to the CM, asking him to hold the trust vote on March 17..Meanwhile, BJP MLAs from Madhya Pradesh moved the Supreme Court seeking a direction to conduct a floor test in the state assembly..Breaking: BJP leaders file petition in Supreme Court calling for Floor Test in Madhya Pradesh Assembly.Around the same time, the MP Congress to approach the Supreme Court, challenging the Governor's direction to hold a floor test..Trust Vote can't be held in absence of captive MLAs: Madhya Pradesh Congress moves SC against Governor's direction to hold floor test.After hearing the matter for three days, the Court directed for a floor test to be held..In today's judgment passed by the Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, a number of issues surrounding the crisis are addressed. These include the powers of the Governor and the Speaker, as well as the trend of defection being seen in various states..Powers of the GovernorThe primary issue before the Court was whether the Governor is entrusted with the authority to call for a trust vote in the course of a running assembly..At the outset, the Court dismissed warnings that it should not enter the realm of politics by adjudicating on such issues.."As the ultimate arbiter of the constitutional text, this Court is tasked with ensuring that each branch of government operates within the limits placed upon it by the Constitution, including in the realm of democratic politics…...Merely because the prima facie determination made by the Governor was of the political support enjoyed by the incumbent government or the action demanded was a political process (the floor test) is not a reason for this Court not to hear the matter.".The Court went on to note that the question of whether a Governor can call for a trust vote in an already constituted legislative assembly is not entirely res integra. After referring to the Suprmee Court's decision in SR Bommai v. Union of India, the Court held,."As a matter of constitutional law, it would not be correct to proceed on the basis that the constitutional authority entrusted to the Governor to require the Council of Ministers to prove their majority on the floor of the House can only be exercised at the very inception after general elections are held and not when the Governor has objective reasons to believe that the incumbent government does not command the confidence of the house. The Governor is not denuded of the power to order a floor test where on the basis of the material available to the Governor it becomes evident that the issue as to whether the government commands the confidence of the house requires to be assessed on the basis of a floor test."Supreme Court.The Bench further warned that entrusting such a function to the Governor is not to destabilise an existing government, and that such a decision would be amenable to judicial review.It also called for circumspection on the part of the Governor while calling for a floor test."In exercising the constitutional authority to demand a trust vote, the Governor must do so with circumspection in a manner that ensures that the authority of the House to determine the existence or loss of confidence in the government is not undermined. Absent exigent and compelling circumstances, there is no reason for the Governor to prevent the ordinary legislative process of a no confidence motion from running its due course.".The Court went on to detail what is expected of the role of the Governor."The Governor is an appointee of the President but does not represent either a political ideology or a political view. The Governor is expected to discharge the role of a constitutional statesman. The authority of the Governor is not one to be exercised in aid of a political dispensation which considers an elected government of the day to be a political opponent.".Moreover, it noted that the Governor's powers should not be used to destabilise governments.."In discharging this crucial role, it is necessary that the Governor bear in mind that the purpose underlying the entrustment of the authority to require a trust vote is not to displace duly elected governments but to intervene with caution when the circumstances which are drawn to the attention of the Governor indicate a loss of majority. This power is granted to the Governor to ensure that the principle of collective responsibility is maintained at all times and must be exercised with caution."Supreme Court.With regard to the present case, the Court ruled that in view of the resignation of the 22 MLAs (which were accepted by the Speaker) and the Chief Minster's refusal to conduct a floor test on March 16, the Governor was justified in calling for a floor test to be conducted.Referring to earlier instances where the Court has ordered floor tests to be conducted in various states, the Court said,"...with the communication of the Governor for convening a trust vote immediately after the Governor‘s address, the session of the Legislative Assembly was adjourned till 26 March 2020 despite the House having already convened. This would have allowed the state of political uncertainty in Madhya Pradesh to continue and furnish avenues for political bargaining on terms which cannot be regarded as legitimate. It is with a view to obviate illegitimate and unseemly political bargaining in the quest for political power that this Court has consistently insisted upon the convening of a trust vote at the earliest date.".Speaker's discretion v. Governor's prerogativeThe Court went on to deliberate on the argument forwarded by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi that convening a trust vote at this stage will impinge on the discretion of the Speaker to determine whether the resignations should be accepted. .Madhya Pradesh Political Crisis: How does Court ensure that there is free exercise of choice by MLAs? SC adjourns matter to tomorrow.In this regard, the Court held,."The holding of a trust vote operates in a distinct field from the issue as to whether one or more individual members of the Legislative Assembly have embarked upon a voluntary act of resignation or have incurred the wrath of the Tenth Schedule...the pendency of the proceedings before the Speaker cannot be a valid basis to not have the confidence of the House in the government determined by the convening of a floor test."Supreme Court.The fact that the Speaker in the present case accepted the resignations tendered by six of the twenty-two members on March 14 weakened this argument, the Court said..Fluid allegiances and Horse-tradingWhile making a reference to the often-fluid allegiances of democratically elected representatives, the Court refused to express an opinion on the same..Alluding to the trend of MLAs being held "captive", the Court said that if violence and coercion exist, it 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, the Bench observed..Commenting further on what has been termed as 'resort politics', the Court observed,."The spectacle of rival political parties whisking away their political flock to safe destinations does little credit to the state of our democratic politics. It is an unfortunate reflection on the confidence which political parties hold in their own constituents and a reflection of what happens in the real world of politics. Political bargaining, or horse-trading, as we noticed, is now an oft repeated usage in legal precedents. ̳Poaching‘ is an expression which was bandied about on both sides of the debate in the present case. It is best that courts maintain an arm‘s length from the sordid tales of political life."Supreme Court.Justice Chandrachud further called for legislation to deal with breakdown in the composition and allegiances of political parties due to private allurements offered to Members as opposed to public policy considerations..On these grounds and more, the Court decided to order the floor test on March 19.Terming the reliefs sought by the Madhya Pradesh Congress as “manifestly misconceived”, the Court held,."The court 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. Whether 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.".During the hearings held last month, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohtagi appeared for the BJP MLA petitioners. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for the rebel MLAs, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Governor.On the other side, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appeared for the Madhya Pradesh Congress petitioners, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Speaker, and the Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal represented former Chief Minister Kamal Nath..[Read the judgment]