Case Note & Summary
The case arose from a political crisis in Maharashtra following the 2019 Legislative Assembly elections, where no party secured a majority. The Shiv Sena, BJP, and NCP were involved in a coalition, but the BJP declined to form the Government after the alliance with Shiv Sena broke down. The Governor subsequently invited the Shiv Sena to form the Government, leading to a petition filed by the Shiv Sena, NCP, and INC under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the Governor's action as unconstitutional. The petitioners sought a writ to declare the Governor's invitation as illegal and requested a floor test to determine majority support. The Court noted the urgency of the matter and the need for a floor test to uphold democratic values. The Solicitor General defended the Governor's actions, asserting that the Governor had sufficient grounds to invite the party based on letters indicating majority support. The Court emphasized the importance of conducting a floor test to prevent potential horse trading and ensure transparency in the democratic process. Ultimately, the Court directed that a floor test be conducted on 27.11.2019, with specific procedures to be followed, including the appointment of a pro tem Speaker and live telecasting of the proceedings. The Court granted time for the respondents to file counter affidavits and scheduled the matter for further hearing after twelve weeks.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Governor's Powers - Validity of Governor's Action - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 356 - The Court examined the constitutionality of the Governor's decision to invite a party to form the Government without a floor test, emphasizing the need for democratic values and governance. Held that the floor test is essential to ascertain majority support in the Assembly (Paras 1-27).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Governor's action in inviting a particular party to form the Government was unconstitutional and whether a floor test should be conducted.
Final Decision
The Court directed that a floor test be conducted on 27.11.2019 to ascertain whether the Respondent No. 3 has majority support, with specific procedures to be followed, including the appointment of a pro tem Speaker and live telecasting of the proceedings.
Law Points
- Judicial review
- Article 32
- Article 356
- democratic values
- floor test
- separation of powers
