Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the political crisis in Maharashtra following the 2019 Legislative Assembly elections. No single party secured a majority. The Governor invited the BJP (single largest party) to form government, but it declined. Subsequently, the Shiv Sena, NCP, and INC claimed to have a majority alliance (Maha Vikas Aghadi). However, on 23.11.2019, the Governor revoked President's Rule and invited Devendra Fadnavis (BJP) to form government, claiming support from 170 MLAs. The petitioners (Shiv Sena, NCP, INC) challenged this action as unconstitutional and sought an immediate floor test. The Supreme Court, hearing the matter urgently, noted the competing claims and the need to uphold democratic values. The court rejected arguments that it could not intervene, citing precedents like S.R. Bommai and Harish Chandra Rawat. It ordered an immediate floor test on 27.11.2019, with video recording and a pro tem Speaker appointed by the Governor, to be conducted by the Assembly Secretary. The court directed that the result be reported to it. The decision aimed to prevent horse-trading and ensure transparency in ascertaining the majority.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Governor's Satisfaction - Floor Test - Article 356, Article 32 of the Constitution of India - The court considered the validity of the Governor's decision to invite a party to form government based on letters of support, and the need for an immediate floor test to prevent horse-trading and uphold democratic values. Held that an immediate floor test is imperative to protect democratic principles (Paras 17-20). B) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Separation of Powers - Article 212 of the Constitution of India - The court addressed the extent of judicial review over the Governor's satisfaction and the proceedings of the House, noting that while the Governor's independence must be respected, the court can intervene to ensure constitutional morality and prevent undemocratic practices (Paras 17-18). C) Constitutional Law - Interim Relief - Floor Test - Article 32 of the Constitution of India - The petitioners sought directions for a floor test with video recording and a pro tem Speaker. The court, at the interim stage, ordered an immediate floor test to be conducted on 27.11.2019, with video recording and a pro tem Speaker appointed by the Governor, to ascertain the majority support of Respondent No. 3 (Paras 21-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Governor's action in inviting Respondent No. 3 to form the government on 23.11.2019 was unconstitutional and whether an immediate floor test should be directed to ascertain majority support.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court ordered an immediate floor test to be conducted on 27.11.2019 at 11:00 a.m. in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. The test shall be conducted by the Secretary of the Assembly, with a pro tem Speaker appointed by the Governor. The proceedings shall be video recorded and the result reported to the Court. The Court directed that no other business be conducted and that the test be completed in one day.
Law Points
- Floor test
- Governor's satisfaction
- Judicial review
- Constitutional morality
- Article 356
- Article 32
- Article 212
- Separation of powers
