Case Title: Shivraj Singh Chouhan & Ors. V. Speaker Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Ors.
The Madhya Pradesh Governor's ability to call a floor test for the legislature cannot be viewed as "constitutionally incorrect," the Supreme Court said.
The Supreme Court upheld its directive to perform a floor test in the MP assembly to demonstrate the majority support for the outgoing Kamal Nath-led government. According to the facts and circumstances of the case, Governor Lalji Tandon was justified in requesting a floor test, the court found.
"Based on the resignation of six ministers of the incumbent government (accepted by the Speaker), the purported resignation of sixteen more Members belonging to the INC, and the refusal of the Chief Minister to conduct a floor test despite the House having been convened on 16 March 2020, the exercise of power by the Governor to convene a floor test cannot be regarded as constitutionally improper", observed Justice DY Chandrachud in the judgment.
Following the resignation of 22 Congress MLAs, Shivraj Singh Chouhan and other BJP leaders petitioned for an instant floor test in the legislature. A bench made up of Justices DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta rendered its decision.
Notably, the Court disagreed with the claim made by Senior Counsel Dr. AM Singhvi and Kapil Sibal on behalf of the Speaker and the former Chief Minister, respectively, that the Governor cannot order a floor test when the House is active and in session.
The argument that the Governor can only order a floor test during the government formation phase was rejected by the bench.
Senior attorneys Singhvi and Sibal argued that the stage of government formation immediately following elections was covered by all Supreme Court precedents for mandating floor tests. The Supreme Court's decision to approve the Governor's order for a floor test while the house was in session was unprecedented.
The Court rejected this argument and stated:-
"Unquestionably, the majority of cases from this Court have dealt with circumstances in which a trust vote was called during the earliest stages of the formation of a government after an election. This may be due to a number of factors, including the incidence of disagreements during the earliest stages of state government creation. Nevertheless, this line of reasoning does not imply that the Governor's authority is exhausted or that it cannot be used once a government has been established ".
On the fair assumption that the government has lost trust, the governor may request a floor test.
While the Court noted that the Governor must exercise the authority to prorogue and summon the house under Article 174 of the Constitution with the assistance and counsel of the Council of Ministers, it also stated that the Governor may call for a floor test if there are good reasons to believe that the government has lost the support of the House.
The Court further stated that the Governor's authority is not intended to topple a government and that its use is not exempt from judicial review.
“Without a doubt, giving the Governor this responsibility is not done to topple an established administration. The Governor's decision is not exempt from the judicial review where the satisfaction upon which the Governor based his or her order for a floor test is contested. If the Governor possessed evidence that was at least ostensibly pertinent and pertinent for the court to order the conduct of a floor test, the court would be justified in doing so.”
The Supreme Court also urged caution when using this authority during a session of the house since members have the right to challenge the Speaker in a resolution of no confidence. The Court advised the Governor not to intrude into the Speaker's territory as a result.
Regarding Dr Singhvi's claim that the Speaker's authority to decide whether to disqualify members who have submitted their resignations was "short-circuited" by the Governor's decision, the Court pointed out that the Speaker had already accepted 6 resignations and had postponed the resignations of the remaining 16 members without providing a reason.
The House of Representative's inability to have confidence in the administration cannot be justified by the ongoing processes before the Speaker.