17 March 2023

Table of Contents

Maharashtra Crisis-SC Ruling on Powers of Governor in Rameshwar Prasad Case 2005

GS-2: Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the Judiciary—Ministries and Departments of the Government; pressure groups and formal/informal associations and their role in the Polity.

During Shiv Sena crisis hearings, the Supreme Court asked if Governor can order a floor test during internal party conflicts. Responding to this, Solicitor General referred to Rameshwar Prasad case, 2005 that defines Governor's powers to dissolve the Assembly.

The context: A hung Assembly after the state elections in Bihar in 2005

• In 2005, Bihar state elections resulted in a hung Legislative Assembly as no party or alliance could gain the required majority of 122 seats in the 243-member House.
• The contenders for government formation included the NDA, comprising BJP and JD(U) led by Nitish Kumar with 92 seats, RJD led by Lalu Prasad with 75 seats, LJP led by Ram Vilas Paswan with 29 seats, and Congress with 10 seats.
• The then Governor Buta Singh concluded that no party or alliance could reach a majority in the Assembly after meeting with political parties due to LJP’s indecisiveness.
• On March 6, 2005, Governor Singh recommended President’s Rule in Bihar under Article 365 and kept the Assembly in "suspended animation," meaning it would not be dissolved, but it could not conduct business either.
• The following day, two notifications were issued, imposing President’s Rule on Bihar and transferring the powers of the President to the Governor subject to his final control and superintendence.
• In the meantime, a group of 17 Independent MLAs and three smaller parties extended their support to the NDA group led by Nitish Kumar.
• The Governor sent two reports to the President regarding the situation in Bihar.

• The first report was sent on April 27, 2005, and warned of attempts to buy off MLAs to form a majority. It recommended fresh elections be held to avoid democracy distortion.
• The second report was sent on May 21, 2005, recommending the dissolution of the existing Assembly and reiterating the recommendation for fresh elections. 

• The Union Cabinet forwarded the reports to the President for his assent, which is necessary for dissolution of an Assembly and conducting fresh elections. 

• The JD(U) and BJP staged protests and strikes after the Assembly was dissolved.

• Rameshwar Prasad, an MLA from the Sandesh Assembly seat, filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Presidential Proclamation of May 23, 2005, and the dissolution of the Assembly.
• The Election Commission of India announced fresh elections in Bihar in four phases between October 18 and November 19, 2005, despite the petitions before the Supreme Court still pending.
• The announcement created a difficult situation as the outcome of the election could potentially complicate things while the Supreme Court was yet to decide in the matter.

The Verdict: Days before the scheduled elections, Supreme Court announces verdict

• A Constitution Bench led by CJI YK Sabharwal concluded a six-day hearing and delivered a shorter version of its verdict on October 7, 2005.
• The SC declared the President's Proclamation of dissolving Bihar's state assembly as unconstitutional.
• Despite this, the court decided not to restore the Assembly due to the upcoming elections.
• The Constitution provides for Governor obtaining the opinion of the Election Commission and acting according to such opinion in the constitutional scheme of things.
• The court also held the Union Council of Ministers responsible for accepting the Governor's report as a "gospel truth" without verifying the facts.
• The court accused the Governor of misleading the Council of Ministers and rejected the Governor's actions as "mere pretence."
• The court observed that the Governor's real objective was to keep a political party from staking a claim to form the government.

The Similarity and difference: The Supreme Court criticizes the Governor's behavior in the Maharashtra case

• The Supreme Court expressed concern over the use of powers by then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to order a floor test, which led to the resignation of then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray.
• The crisis in the state occurred after a rebellion in the Shiv Sena in June 2022, with the majority of MLAs joining the faction led by current Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.
• During the proceedings, a five-judge Bench led by CJI D Y Chandrachud questioned whether the Governor could intervene by calling for a floor test in case of internal dissatisfaction within a party.
• SG Mehta referred to the 2005 ruling in Rameshwar Prasad’s case, but Justice P S Narasimha pointed out that the situation in Maharashtra was different from that case as the government was never formed in Bihar — however, in the present situation, the government in Maharashtra had been there for more than three-and-a-half years.
• Thus, the CJI distinguished between the decision in Rameshwar Prasad and the present case, stating that the Governor cannot refuse the formation of a new government and override the majority because of his subjective assessment, as the current government was legitimately formed.

[Ref- IE]

Fact Files