MP governor was right in ordering floor test: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday endorsed Madhya Pradesh governor Lalji Tandon 's direction to Kamal Nath government to face floor test on March 16 following resignation of 22 Congress MLAs leading to its resignation and installation of BJP government-led by Shivraj Singh Chouhan, and ruled that a Governor had the power to direct floor test even during an ongoing Session.Rejecting arguments of senior advocates A M Singhvi, Kapil Sibal , Vivek Tankha and Dushyant Dave appearing for the Congress, a bench of Justices D Y Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta said, "A 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."Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Chandrachud sounded a caution - "Undoubtedly, the purpose of entrusting such a function to the Governor is not to destabilise an existing government. When the satisfaction on the basis of which the Governor has ordered a floor test is called into question, the decision of the Governor is not immune from judicial review." The SC said constitutional courts would be justified in testing the relevance and cogency of material leading to the Governr's decision to order floor test.SC said the Governor has neither interfered in the House proceedings nor impinged upon Speaker's powers. Agreeing with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for Governor, and senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Maninder Singh for BJP, the SC said Governor had cogent material - resignation of 22 Congress MLAs, removal of six of them as ministers, and acceptance of resignations of these six MLAs by Speaker, to rightly ask then Kamal Nath government to prove its majority on the floor of the House.Justice Chandrachud said, "The Governor is expected to discharge the role of a constitutional statesman... and not consider an elected government of the day to be a political opponent... To act contrary to this mandate would result in the realisation of the worst fears of the constitutional framers who were cognisant that the office of the Governor could potentially derail democratically elected governments but nonetheless placed trust in future generations to ensure that government of the people, by the people and for the people would not be denuded by those who were designed to act as its sentinels."The Governors must realise that the power given to them to direct floor test is to be exercised cautiously in extreme circumstances. "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. The circumstances on the basis of which the Governor forms a prima facie opinion leading up to a communication requiring a trust vote in the legislative assembly must be of an objective nature.""The exercise of such a power is not intended to destabilise or displace a democratically elected government accountable to the legislative assembly and collectively responsible to it. The exercise of the power to call for a trust vote must be guided by the over-arching consideration that the formation of satisfaction by the governor is not based on extraneous considerations," it said.Endorsing the governor's direction for floor test, the SC said, "Faced 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 March 26 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 unsemly 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."The SC said, "In the circumstances as they have emerged in this case, the exercise of authority by the governor was based on circumstances which were legitimate to the purpose of ensuring that the norm of collective responsibility is duly preserved."