The Supreme Court on Friday directed that a floor test be conducted within 24 hours by a pro-tem speaker in Karnataka to end the impasse over government formation.But hardly had the ink dried on the order, a fresh controversy erupted when Karnataka governor Vajubhai Vala gave his assent for appointing three-time BJP MLA KG Bopaiah as pro-tem speaker.The JDS-Congress combine approached the Supreme Court to issue strict directions on how the pro-tem speaker should conduct Saturday's proceedings. The court has set a hearing for Saturday at 10.30 am.The petition seeks directions from the SC that the pro-tem speaker will only act on two agenda items — administering oath to MLAs and conducting the floor test. It seeks directions to video record the proceedings besides an assertion that Bopaiah will not act beyond implementing SC's Friday order.They also pointed out that a protem speaker is by convention the seniormost member of the assembly, which again was overlooked in this case.The SC had passed strong strictures against Bopaiah in 2011 for disqualifying three BJP MLAs who had expressed their lack of confidence in BS Yeddyurappa in his first term as chief minister. The court not only quashed his ruling, but termed it “partisan”.Earlier in the day, the court reviewed the documents submitted by Yeddyurappa to the governor and ordered that the floor test be held at 4 pm on Saturday. The court did not get into examining the conduct of the governor but focused on ensuring an early floor test. “Tomorrow. There can be no compromise on this,” a three-judge bench, led by Justice AK Sikri, said after hearing high-pitched arguments from both sides.As Yeddyurappa’s lawyers kept protesting against the lack of time for consultations, at Justice Bobde’s intervention, Justice Sikri settled on 4 pm as time for floor test because all 222 MLAs have to first take oath as new members The Supreme Court rejected another demand by Attorney General KK Venugopal for secret ballot so that members can vote as per their conscience. “No. This has never happened,” Justice Sikri said dismissively.Much to the BJP’s discomfiture, Justice Sikri also made it clear that the new CM should not rush through the nomination of an anglo-Indian MLA.The court also took an assurance that Yeddyurappa will not take any policy decisions until he proves his majority on the floor of the house.This was in response to the Congress plea, which had raised alarm over Yeddyurappa announcing a farm loan waiver on Thursday just after being sworn in as CM.At first, the bench was to pass a specific order asking Yeddyurappa to refrain from taking any executive actions, but following vehement protests from Yeddyurappa’s lawyer Mukul Rohatgi, it later just recorded his assurance that he would not do so.The hearing was short yet dramatic. Yeddyurappa’s side argued that the people’s mandate in the state was for a “change” and that the Congress and JDS had entered into an “unholy alliance” to stymie the mandate.Rohatgi claimed that his party had the numbers and would prove it on the floor of the House. There was no compulsion on the party to reveal who were supporting in the current atmosphere of “threats and apprehensions.”“They have taken away their MLAs. They are facing threats and intimidation. We have the numbers. We will prove it on the floor of the House.It is settled law that it cannot be done anywhere else, or by anyone else. Not by the governor, not in court,” Rohatgi claimed.The Congress and JDS through Singhvi and Sibal argued that their combine had 117 members. But that was contested by Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who claimed that the Congress never sent a list to the governor. In any case, two of the names lacked signatures,” Mehta claimed.Rohatgi claimed that there were many names in the list who were supporting the single largest party. Singhvi argued that the BJP letter staking claim to form government had no numbers whereas the Congress-JDS combine’s list had 117. “Can the governor then say that he had applied his mind and 4 was more than 5?”After hearing these arguments, with interventions by Ram Jethmalani who said that the governor had acted unconstitutionally, the bench came up with two alternatives — have a longdrawn hearing in which the court adjudicates on the merits of the governor’s decision or have a floor test as early as possible. The court said that the law point it would decide later.The court will hear the law point after ten weeks to settle the salutary principles laid down in Sarkaria commission once and for all. There is much logic to the Sarkaria recommendations, but we need to lay down the law, the court said.