2020 Supreme(SC) 302

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta, JJ.
Shivraj Singh Chouhan & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Speaker Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 439 of 2020 and with Writ Petition (C) No. 449 of 2020
Decided on : 13-04-2020

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) A Member who seeks to resign cannot be compelled to continue in office – Court cannot fetter discretion of Speaker to conduct an inquiry into whether a resignation is voluntary or genuine.
(2) Governor is an appointee of President but does not represent either a political ideology or a political view – Governor is expected to discharge role of a constitutional statesman.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Articles 163(1), 174(2) and 190(3) – Floor-test in Legislative Assembly – A Member of legislature is vested with sole prerogative to determine whether or not to continue in office – A Member who seeks to resign cannot be compelled to continue in office – A resignation is required to be accepted by Speaker or Chairman, as the case may be – Seat occupied by Member falls vacant only upon acceptance of resignation – Role of Speaker is to determine whether a resignation is voluntary or genuine? – Satisfaction of Speaker should be based on information received or otherwise and upon making such enquiry as is considered to be fit – Though, term ‘genuine’ has not been defined, what is meant is authenticity of letter of resignation – Court cannot fetter discretion of Speaker to conduct an inquiry into whether a resignation is voluntary? or genuine – However, neither can Speaker exceed terms of mandate and conduct an overbroad inquiry into underlying motives of Member – It is sufficient that Speaker is satisfied that Member‘s resignation is voluntary and genuine. (Para 24)

(B) Constitution of India – Articles 163(1), 174(2) and 190(3) – Floor-test in Legislative Assembly – Relationship between executive arm of State and its legislative arm in democratically elected legislative bodies of States is not merely a matter of a constitutional affliction – In making Council of Ministers answerable to legislative assembly and in entrusting to legislative assembly authority to exercise oversight over affairs of State, Constitution weaves an intricate process that has been described as representing checks and balances of democratic governance – Concept of House being prorogued is distinct from dissolution of legislative assembly – A decision to prorogue Houses does not bring to an end duration of assembly – Governor is not denuded of power to order a floor test where on the basis of material available to Governor it becomes evident that issue as to whether government commands confidence of house requires to be assessed on the basis of a floor test – When satisfaction on the basis of which Governor has ordered a floor test is called into question, decision of Governor is not immune from judicial review – Court would be justified in scrutinizing whether Governor prima facie had relevant and germane material to order a floor test to be conducted – Power under Article 174 of Constitution to summon House and to prorogue it is one which is exercised by Governor on aid and advice of Council of Ministers – But in a situation where Governor has reasons to believe that Council of Ministers headed by Chief Minister has lost confidence of House, constitutional propriety requires that issue be resolved by calling for a floor test – Governor in calling for a floor test cannot be construed to have acted beyond bounds of constitutional authority – Exercise of power to call for a trust vote must be guided by over-arching consideration that formation of satisfaction by Governor is not based on extraneous considerations. (Paras 37, 38, 41, 42 and 43)

(C) Constitution of India – Articles 163(1), 174(2) and 190(3) – Floor-test in Legislative Assembly – In exercising constitutional authority to demand a trust vote, Governor must do so with circumspection in a manner that ensures that authority of House to determine existence or loss of confidence in government is not undermined – Absent exigent and compelling circumstances, there is no reason for Governor to prevent ordinary legislative process of a no-confidence motion from running its due course – Governor is an appointee of President but does not represent either a political ideology or a political view – Governor is expected to discharge role of a constitutional statesman – Authority of Governor is not one to be exercised in aid of a political dispensation which considers an elected government of the day to be a political opponent – Circumstances on the basis of which Governor forms a prima facie opinion leading up to a communication requiring a trust vote in legislative assembly must be of an objective nature – Court cannot issue a direction mandating that a trust vote cannot be convened if any one or more Members do not remain present in the House – Whether or not to remain present is for individual Members to decide and they would, necessarily be accountable for decisions which they take, both to their political party and to their constituents – Challenge to communication of Governor must fail. (Paras 45, 46, 56 and 57)

Facts of the Case:

Present controversy arises out of a dispute between Governor, as the titular head of the executive within the State of Madhya Pradesh, Chief Minister, the de-facto head of the executive within State and the Speaker of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, who has supervisory jurisdiction over legislative branch of the State. An imbroglio in the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly over the purported resignations of twenty-two Members and several communications by the Governor to Chief Minister to hold an immediate floor test have given rise to these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution.

Findings of the Court:

Ultimately, it is for the Members to decide who they wish to associate with and to face the consequences of such a decision in accordance with the law and the Constitution. We have already indicated that we are inclined to issue directions to ensure the protection of their rights and liberties as free citizens. Among the reliefs which have been sought is a direction that the vote of confidence should be held only in the presence of all the duly elected Members and that a trust vote cannot be held in the absence of representatives of twenty-two constituencies, whose presence could be secured by holding by-elections for the vacant seats in accordance with law. These reliefs are patently misconceived.

Result : Writ Petitions disposed of with directions.