SHIVRAJ SINGH CHOUHAN & ORS. versus SPEAKER MADHYA PRADESH LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 13-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
787
SHIVRAJ SINGH CHOUHAN & ORS.
v.
SPEAKER MADHYA PRADESH LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY & ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 439 of 2020)
APRIL 13, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.174 – Power of the Governor to
call floor test – Scope of – Held: Power under Art.174 of the
Constitution to summon the House and to prorogue is exercised by
the Governor on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers –
But in a situation where the Governor has reasons to believe that
the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister have lost the
confidence of the House, constitutional propriety requires that the
issue be resolved by calling for a floor test – The Governor in calling
for a floor test cannot be construed to have acted beyond the bounds
of constitutional authority.
Administrative Law: Judicial review – Governor calling for a
floor test – Scope of interference by Courts – Held: The powers
which are entrusted to constitutional functionaries are not beyond
the pale of judicial review – Where the exercise of the discretion by
Governor to call a floor test is challenged before the court, it is not
immune from judicial review – The court is entitled to determine
whether in calling for the floor test, the Governor did so on the
basis of objective material and reasons which were relevant and
germane to the exercise of the power.
Constitution of India: Art.174 – Duty of the Governor while
calling floor test – Held: In exercising the constitutional authority
to demand a trust vote, the Governor must do so with circumspection
in a manner that ensures that the authority of the House to determine
the existence or loss of confidence in the government is not
undermined – Absent exigent and compelling circumstances, there
is no reason for the Governor to prevent the ordinary legislative
process of a no confidence motion from running its due course –
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 787
787
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
The Governor is an appointee of the President but does not represent
either a political ideology or a political view – The reason underlying
the entrustment of the authority to the Governor is the ability to
stand above political conflicts and with the experience of
statesmanship, to wheel the authority in a manner which subserves
and does not detract from the strength and resilience of
democratically elected legislatures and the governments in the states
who are accountable to them.
Constitution of India: Art.174 – Exercise of power by
Governor to convene floor test – In this case, the Budget Session of
the Legislative Assembly was convened on the aid and advice of the
Council of Ministers to commence from 16 March 2020 – The
Governor was intimated that 22 Members owing allegiance to the
INC had tendered their resignations to the Speaker of the Assembly
– Copies of the resignation letters were forwarded to the Governor
– At this stage, the validity of these resignations was not discerned
and no decision was made by the Speaker as to whether the
resignations were voluntary or genuine – The Chief Minister
subsequently tendered advice to the Governor for the removal of
six Members who were ministers in the State government – On 13
March 2020, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly issued notices
of disqualification – However, on 14 March 2020, the resignations
of six Members who were ministers of the incumbent government
were accepted by the Speaker acting in exercise of the constitutional
authority under the proviso to Art.190(3)(b) – The Chief Minister
addressed a communication to the Governor stating that the
convening of the floor test would be a sure basis for resolving the
conundrum – However, upon the convening of the Legislative
Assembly, no floor test was conducted, and the House was adjourned
till 26 March 2020 – Governor advised to conduct a floor test –
Propriety of, challenged – Held: 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 – In order to obviate
illegitimate and unseemly political bargaining in the quest for
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
789
political power, the trust vote should be convened at the earlies

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.