DATE: 26/11/2019
COURT: Supreme Court of India
BENCH: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Ashok
Bhushan, and Justice Sanjiv Khanna
FACTS:
Following
the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections held in October 2019, no single
party secured a clear majority. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) emerged as the
single largest party with 105 seats, followed by Shiv Sena with 56, the
Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) with 54, and the Indian National Congress with
44 in the 288-member Assembly. Despite being long-time allies, the BJP and Shiv
Sena fell out over the distribution of power, particularly the Chief Minister’s
post, resulting in a political deadlock. The Governor of Maharashtra, Bhagat
Singh Koshyari, initially invited the BJP to form the government, but it
declined due to insufficient support. Shiv Sena was then invited, followed by
the NCP, but both failed to present letters of support within the stipulated
time. The Governor subsequently recommended President’s Rule under Article 356
of the Constitution, which was imposed on November 12, 2019.
In a
sudden turn of events, President’s Rule was revoked early on November 23, 2019,
and Devendra Fadnavis of the BJP was sworn in as Chief Minister, with NCP’s
Ajit Pawar as Deputy Chief Minister, claiming they had the numbers to form a
majority. This development shocked the Shiv Sena, Congress, and the NCP (which
claimed Ajit Pawar acted without the party’s consent). Shiv Sena, through its
leader Sunil Prabhu, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the
Governor’s actions and seeking an immediate floor test to prevent any
unconstitutional functioning of the state government. The matter was taken up
urgently by the Supreme Court due to its serious constitutional implications
involving the role of the Governor, the use of Article 356, and the legitimacy
of government formation.
ISSUES:
The key
issues were whether the Governor’s decision to invite Devendra Fadnavis to form
the government, and the subsequent revocation of President’s Rule in the early
hours of November 23, 2019, were constitutionally valid. The Court was also
asked to decide whether an immediate floor test should be ordered to ascertain
whether the BJP-NCP alliance commanded a majority in the Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly, in order to prevent horse-trading and uphold democratic
principles.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor’s
decision to invite Devendra Fadnavis to form the government in Maharashtra was
constitutionally questionable, particularly in the absence of adequate
verification of majority support in the Assembly. The Court also ordered a
floor test to be conducted within 24 hours of the ruling to determine if the
BJP-led government had the majority. This judgment aimed to uphold democratic
processes and ensure that the government formed was based on majority support
in the legislative assembly, emphasizing the need for transparency and
accountability in the formation of a government.
The
Supreme Court's judgment is grounded in the constitutional principles
surrounding the formation of a government and the role of the Governor in the
process. The Court emphasized that the Governor’s decision to invite Devendra
Fadnavis to form the government, despite lacking clear majority support, was a
violation of democratic norms. The Court questioned the Governor's decision to
invite Fadnavis without ensuring that he had the requisite majority, as it was
crucial to verify if the proposed government could command the confidence of
the Assembly. The Court stressed that the formation of a government should be
based on a clear majority, and such decisions should not be made arbitrarily or
without sufficient proof of support from elected representatives.
Additionally,
the Court underscored the importance of a floor test to validate the claim of
majority, ensuring that the democratic process was respected. By directing a
floor test to be held within 24 hours, the Court reinforced the principle that
the executive must have the confidence of the legislature, and any government
formed without such support would lack constitutional legitimacy. The Court’s
ruling aimed to restore constitutional balance by ensuring that no government
could be formed through unconstitutional or non-transparent means, thereby
protecting the integrity of the democratic process in Maharashtra.
ANALYSIS:
The
Supreme Court's ruling in Shiv Sena
vs. Union of India centers around the fundamental constitutional
principle that a government must be formed with the clear mandate of the
majority in the legislature. In this case, the Governor’s decision to invite
Devendra Fadnavis of the BJP to form the government, despite the lack of clear
majority support, was deemed constitutionally flawed. The Court highlighted
that the decision lacked transparency and failed to properly ascertain whether
the proposed government had the support necessary to command the confidence of
the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. By emphasizing the need for proper
verification of majority support, the Court reinforced the idea that forming a
government without such support would undermine the legitimacy of the
democratic process.
In line
with its reasoning, the Supreme Court also ordered an immediate floor test
within 24 hours to ensure that the government formed had the confidence of the
legislature, thereby preventing any unconstitutional functioning. The floor
test was seen as a critical step in validating the claim of majority support
and safeguarding the democratic principles that underlie the Constitution. The
Court's judgment was a reaffirmation of the importance of transparency,
accountability, and the preservation of constitutional integrity in the process
of government formation. It aimed to restore faith in the democratic process by
ensuring that no government could operate without clear and demonstrable
majority support, thus upholding the integrity of the legislative process in
Maharashtra.
info@adhwaitha.com