Winter Session of Bihar Assembly set to be stormy
Meanwhile, the ruling NDA coalition, buoyed by their recent victory in all four seats during the Assembly bye-elections, is enthusiastic about defending their position.
Kamal Nath had told the apex court in his petition that the governor of a state can at best call for a session but not ask for a floor test in a running assembly.
The Supreme Court on Monday held ‘valid’ the Madhya Pradesh Governor Lalji Tandon’s decision to order a floor test in the state assembly after the resignation of 22 Congress MLAs, leading to the government formation by Shivraj Singh Chouhan led BJP.
The decision is a setback for the former Chief Minister Kamal Nath who was stumbling the Congress chariot in the state with a wafer-thin majority which later collapsed after the 22 MLAs resigned from the party.
Congress had termed the BJP’s government formation as unconstitutional and moved the Supreme Court on Governor’s order to conduct a floor test.
Advertisement
Kamal Nath had told the apex court in his petition that the governor of a state can at best call for a session but not ask for a floor test in a running assembly.
A bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud and comprising Justice Hemant Gupta said the Governor was right in ordering the floor test given the fact of the case.
The apex court in its 68-page judgement rejected Kamal Nath’s contention and relied on the 1994 verdict of Justice Bommai. In its judgment in the SR Bommai vs Union of India case, 1994, the top court had mentioned that a Chief Minister’s refusal to test his strength on the floor of the Legislative Assembly can well be interpreted prima facie proof of his no longer enjoying the confidence of the legislature.
“In a sitting house, there are two modalities — no-confidence motion or floor test. We have given a detailed verdict on Constitutional law and powers of Governors,” the court said.
The apex court further referred to the Congress contention that the BJP had engineered the collapse of the Madhya Pradesh government. “Political bargaining, or horse-trading, as we noticed, is now an oft-repeated usage. 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,” the court said.
The spectacle of rival political parties whisking away their political flock to safe destinations does little credit to the state of our democratic politics, the bench said.
“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,” it said.
The political crisis in the 230-member Madhya Pradesh Assembly erupted after the Senior Congress leader Jyotiraditya Scindia along with 22 Congress legislators resigned from the party. Congress was enjoying a wafer-thin majority in the state with 114 seats leaving behind the opposition BJP on 109 seats.
After the resignation of 22 Congress legislators, the ‘magical figure’ in the Madhya Pradesh Assembly dropped at 106, a number which was a ‘cake-walk’ for BJP to attain.
Advertisement