SHIV SENA vs. UNION OF INDIA

REPORTABLE I N   THE  S UPREME  C OURT   OF  I NDIA C IVIL  O RIGINAL  J URISDICTION RIT ETITION IVIL O OF W  P  (C ) N . 1393   2019 S HIV  S ENA  A ND  O RS . …P ETITIONERS V ERSUS NION F NDIA AND RS ESPONDENTS U  O  I    O .                   …R     ORDER   1. There   is   no   gainsaying   that   the   boundaries   between   the jurisdiction of Courts and Parliamentary independence have been 1 contested   for   a   long   time.   However,   there   is   a   need   and requirement for recognizing institutional comity and separation of powers   so   as   to   tailor   judicial   interference   in   the   democratic processes only as a last resort. This case pertains to one such situation, wherein this Court is called upon to adjudicate and maintain   democratic   values   and   facilitate   the   fostering   of   the citizens’ right of good governance. 2. Before we pass any orders, we need to make a brief reference to the factual aspects giving rise to the petition herein. It was well Signature Not Verified known   that   there   existed   a   pre­poll   alliance   between   the Digitally signed by GEETA AHUJA Date: 2019.11.26 10:58:17 IST Reason: th 1  Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 25  edition, 321 (2019). 1 Bharatiya Janata Party [for short ‘ BJP’ ] and the Shiv Sena, who contested   the   Fourteenth   Maharashtra   Legislative   Assembly elections   jointly.   On   24.10.2019,   the   results   for   the   aforesaid elections   were   declared   and   no   single   party   had   the   requisite majority in the House. On 09.11.2019, the Governor called upon the BJP to indicate its willingness to form the Government, being the single largest party with 105 seats. However, the BJP declined to form the Government on 10.11.2019, as the alliance with the Shiv Sena allegedly broke down.  3. Subsequently, the Governor invited the Shiv Sena to form the Government. In this regard, the Shiv Sena is said to have shown its willingness to stake a claim to form the Government, claiming to have support of the majority. However, the aforesaid endeavor was not fruitful either. Thereafter, the Governor’s effort to seek the Nationalist Congress Party’s [for short ‘ NCP’ ] willingness to stake a claim to form the Government was also not successful. Ultimately,   the   Governor   recommended   President’s   Rule   on 12.11.2019, which was imposed by a Presidential Proclamation on the same day. 4. It is brought to our attention that the Petitioners,  i.e. , Shiv Sena, NCP and the Indian National Congress [for short ‘ INC ’] were in 2 discussion to form a coalition government during this period, and accordingly, a press conference is supposed to have been held on 22.11.2019 regarding the same. 5. It has been canvassed before us that at 5:47 a.m., on 23.11.2019, the President’s Rule was revoked in exercise of powers conferred by clause (2) of Article 356 of the Constitution. Thereafter, the Governor, by letter dated 23.11.2019 invited Respondent No. 3 to form   the   Government.   The   oath   of   office   and   secrecy   was administered accordingly to Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 at around 8.00 a.m. on 23.11.2019 at Raj Bhavan, Mumbai. 6. Aggrieved by the Governor’s action in calling upon Respondent No. 3 to form the Government, the Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution on 23.11.2019 with the following prayers: “a.   Pass   an   appropriate   writ/order/direction declaring   that   action/order   of   the   Hon’ble Governor   dated   23.11.2019   inviting   Shri Devendra Fadnavis to form the Government on 23.11.2019 as unconstitutional, arbitrary, illegal, void­ab­initio, and violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India; and accordingly quash the same; b. Pass an appropriate writ/order/direction to the Hon’ble Governor to invite the alliance of Maha Vikas Aghadi comprising of the Shiv Sena,   Indian   National   Congress   and   the Nationalist   Congress   Party   which   has   the support of more than 144 MLAs to form the 3 Government   under   the   leadership   of   Shri. Uddhav Thackeray; …” 7. At this juncture, it is necessary to extract some of the prayers for interim   directions   sought   by   the   Petitioners   in   the   present petition: “a.   Issue   appropriate   directions   in   terms   of summoning   a   special   session   of   the Fourteenth   Maharashtra   Legislative Assembly   with   the   only   agenda   of administering oath to the MLAs, immediately followed   by   the   holding   of   a   floor   test   on 24.11.2019; … d. Issue appropriate directions in terms of the order   dated   24.02.1998   passed   by   this Hon’ble Court in  Jagadambika Pal  (supra) as   well as   Harish Chandra Singh Rawat (supra)  directing that the proceedings of the House be video recorded and a copy of the video recording be placed on record of this Hon’ble Court; e. Issue appropriate directions appointing a pro­ tem Speaker to preside over the conduct of the floor test;” 8. Further,   the   Petitioners   have   filed   an   affidavit   indicating   the urgency and requirement for hearing the matter on 23.11.2019 itself. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to place the   matter   before   this   Bench   and   the   matter   was   heard   on 24.11.2019 (Sunday) at 11:30 a.m. After hearing the parties, this Court passed the following order: “Issue notice.  4 It was brought to our notice by the learned Senior counsels appearing for the petitioners that   they   have   served   the   respondents through   e.mail.   However,   there   is   no representation for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.  Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India is willing to produce   the   relevant   record,   if   necessary, from the Governor also. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior counsel who is appearing for some BJP MLAs and two independent MLAs, who are not parties to   this   Writ   Petition,   opposed   the entertaining of the Writ Petition as well as passing of any order.  We   have   taken   note   of   all   the   arguments, particularly   the   argument   that   the Governor’s   decision   dated   23­11­2019 inviting   the   Respondent   No.3   to   form   a Government   on   23­11­2019   is unconstitutional. With regard to the second prayer as at `b’, we are not going to consider the same at present. As adjudication of the issues and also the interim prayers sought by the petitioners to conduct floor test within 24 hours has to be considered after perusing the   order   of   the   Governor   as   well   as   the letters submitted by Mr. Devendra Fadnavis –   Respondent   No.3,   even   though   none appeared   for   the   State   Government,   we request Mr. Tushar Mehta to produce those two   letters   by   tomorrow   morning   at   10.30 a.m. when the matter will be taken up, so that appropriate order will be passed.” 9. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 25.11.2019, the Solicitor General of India, produced the letters in compliance of the order of this Court dated 24.11.2019. 5 10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. 11. The learned Senior Counsel for Petitioner No. 1, Mr. Kapil Sibal submitted that   prima facie,   the action of the Governor revoking President’s Rule at 5:47 a.m. and administering the oath of office at   around   8:00   a.m.   reeks   of     The   learned   Senior mala   fide. Counsel   further   submitted   that   Respondent   No.   4   was   never authorized to form the alliance with Respondent No. 3. Therefore, Respondent No. 3 must prove his majority on the floor of the House. For this purpose, as per established norms, the senior most member must be called for assuming the role of   pro­tem Speaker, after which there must be an open ballot and the same should   be   captured   in   a   video   recording   so   as   to   ensure transparency. 12. Agreeing   with   the   aforementioned   submissions,   learned   Senior Counsel Dr. A.M Singhvi appearing for Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that the Governor turned a blind eye by accepting the proposal of formation of the Government put forth by Respondent No. 3. The letter presented to the Governor, although allegedly signed by 54 elected members of the NCP, was unaddressed and did not have a covering letter or any other statement promising their   alliance   to   the   BJP.   In   the   aforesaid   context,   the   sole 6 reliance on the aforesaid letter to prove majority was not prudent. Moreover, when both sides are agreeable to the conduction of a floor test, and an order directing the conduction of the same is not prejudicial to anyone, then there is no reason to defer the same. 13. On the other hand, learned Solicitor General submitted that the satisfaction of the Governor was based on the material placed before   him,   wherein   it   was   indicated   that   Respondent   No.   3 enjoyed   the   support   of   105   elected   members   of   the   BJP,   54 elected members of the NCP and 11 independent elected members (170 in total). The Governor had, in his own wisdom, relied upon the letters of the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and he had no reason to disbelieve the same. The Governor is not obligated to conduct a roving enquiry into the same. The learned Solicitor General also contended that this Court cannot monitor the proceedings of the House as per the provision of Article 212 of the Constitution.  14. Adding to the aforesaid submissions, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mukul Rohatgi appearing for Respondent No. 3 submitted that although a floor test is imperative, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the Governor’s order to set the dates for the floor test. It must be kept in mind that conducting a floor test is the discretion of 7 the Speaker. In light of the above, no interim order can be passed in the aforesaid matter.  15. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Maninder Singh appearing for Respondent   No.   4   vehemently   contended   that   the   jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in the present   matter   and   the   Governor’s   independence   should   be respected.  16. We may note that, while the learned Solicitor General and learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mukul Rohatgi sought additional time to file affidavits in response, however we are of the opinion that the same might not be necessary at this stage.    17. Having   heard   the   submissions   of   the   learned   counsel   on   the issues of maintainability, extent of judicial review and validity of the Governor’s satisfaction, we are of the opinion that they can be adjudicated at an appropriate time. There is no doubt that the contentions have to be answered, as the petitioners have raised questions   concerning   important   constitutional   issues   touching upon   the   democratic   bulwark   of   our   nation.   However,   at   this interim stage, we may note that it is imperative for this Court to be cognizant of the need to take into consideration the competing claims of the parties, uphold the democratic values and foster constitutional morality.  8 18. At the outset, we need to emphasize that recently, in the case of Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Hon’ble Speaker, Karnataka Writ Petition (C) No. 992 of 2019 ,   this Legislative Assembly,  Court had emphasized the requirement of imbibing constitutional morality by the constitutional functionaries. Undemocratic and illegal practices within the political arena should be curtailed.  19. In this context, this Court in   Union of India v. Shri Harish Chandra Singh Rawat , (2016) SCC OnLine SC 618,   held as follows:

possibility of horse trading, it becomes incumbent upon the Court to act to protect democratic values. An immediate floor test, in such a case, might be the most effective mechanism to do so.  A similar  view was  expounded by  B.P.  Jeevan Reddy,  J.,  in  the celebrated   nine­Judge   Bench   decision   of   this   Court   in   S.R. 9 Bommai v. Union of India , (1994) 3 SCC 1,  wherein he   held as follows: “ 395.  The High Court, in our opinion, erred in   holding   that   the   floor   test   is   not obligatory.   If only one keeps in mind the democratic   principle   underlying   the Constitution and the fact that it is the Legislative Assembly that represents the will of the people — and not the Governor — the position would be clear beyond any doubt….There could be no question of the Governor making an assessment of his own. The loss of confidence of the House was an objective   fact,   which   could   have   been demonstrated, one way or the other, on the floor   of   the   House.   In   our   opinion, wherever   a   doubt   arises   whether   the Council   of   Ministers   has   lost   the confidence of the House, the  only  way of testing   it   is   on   the   floor   of   the   House except in an extraordinary situation where because   of   all­pervasive   violence,   the Governor   comes   to  the   conclusion   —  and records the same in his report — that for the reasons mentioned by him, a free vote is not possible in the House. ” (emphasis supplied) 21. This was also the opinion expressed by the  Sarkaria Commission , Rajmannar Committee   and the unanimous opinion expressed by the   Committee of five Governors   constituted by the President of India. In the aforementioned judgment, B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., quoted the observations of the   Committee of Five Governors  with approval, as below:  10 “ 393. …The   five   Governors   unanimously recommended that “the test of confidence in the Ministry should normally be left to a vote in the assembly … Where the Governor is satisfied, by whatever process or means, that the   Ministry   no   longer   enjoys   majority support, he should ask the Chief Minister to face   the   Assembly   and   prove   his   majority within the shortest possible time… A Chief Minister’s refusal to test his strength on the floor of the Assembly can well be interpreted as prima facie proof of his no longer enjoying confidence of the legislature….” 22. Ex   facie ,   Article   212   of   the   Constitution,   relied   on   by   the Respondents, would have no application as it relates to validity of proceedings in the Legislature of a State that cannot be called in question in any court on the ground of any alleged irregularity of procedure.   Clause   (2)  states   that   no   officer   or   member   of   the legislature of a State, in whom powers are vested by or under the Constitution for regulating the procedure, conduct of business or for maintaining order, in the Legislature shall be subject to the jurisdiction of any court in respect of exercise of those powers by him. Sub­Article (2) has no application because no act of any officer or member of the Legislature of the State has been made the subject matter of the present Petition before this Court. This Court, nearly two decades back, in  Jagdambika Pal v. Union of   (1999)   9   SCC   95,   had   passed   an   order,   after   hearing India, 11 counsel   for   the   petitioner   and   the   caveators,   directing   that   a special session of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly will be summoned/ convened   after   two   days   on   26.02.1998   with   the   following directions: “1. … (ii) The only agenda in the Assembly would be to   have   a  composite   floor   test  between  the contending parties in order to see which out of   the   two   contesting   claimants   of   Chief Ministership has a majority in the House. (iii)   It   is   pertinently   emphasised   that   the proceedings in the Assembly shall be totally peaceful   and   disturbance,   if   any,   caused therein would be viewed seriously. (iv)   The   result   of   the   composite   floor   test would be announced by the Speaker faithfully and truthfully. 2. The result is expected to be laid before us on 27­2­1998 at 10.30 a.m. when this Bench assembles again. 3.   Ancillary   directions   are   that   this   order shall be treated to be a notice to all the MLAs, leaving   apart   the   notices   the Governor/Secretariat is supposed to issue. In the interregnum, no major decisions would be made by the functioning Government except attending to routine matters, not much of any consequence.” 12 23. Six years later, in  Anil Kumar Jha v. Union of India , (2005) 3 SCC   150 ,   similar   directions   were   passed   by   this   Court   after recording and taking notice of events that had taken place and few developments which were in the offing, as reported in the media, to observe and direct as follows: “5. Though many a relief has been sought for in the writ petition, as also in the application for grant of ex parte stay, for the present, we are satisfied that a strong prima facie case on the   averments   made   in   the   petition   duly supported by affidavit, has been made out to issue the following interim directions and we order accordingly: (1)   The   session   of   the   Jharkhand   State Assembly has already been convened for 10­3­2005 on which day the newly elected   Members   of   the   Legislative Assembly shall be administered oath. We direct the session to continue and on 11­3­2005 i.e. the next day and on that day the vote of confidence to be put to test. (2) The only agenda in the Assembly on 11­3­2005   would   be   to   have   a   floor test between the contending political alliances in order to see which of the political   parties   or   alliance   has   a majority   in   the   House   and   hence   a claim for Chief Ministership. 13 (3) It is emphasised that the proceedings in   the   Assembly   shall   be   totally peaceful,   and   disturbance,   if   any, caused   therein   shall   be   viewed seriously. (4) The result of the floor test would be announced   by   the   pro   tem   Speaker faithfully and truthfully. (5) This order by the Court shall constitute notice of the meeting of the Assembly for 11­3­2005 and no separate notice would be required. (6)   Till   11­3­2005   there   shall   be   no nomination in view of Article 333 of the   Constitution   and   the   floor   test shall remain confined to the 81 elected members only. (7) We direct the Chief Secretary and the Director   General   of   Police,   State   of Jharkhand to see that all the elected Members of the Legislative Assembly freely, safely and securely attend the Assembly   and   no   interference   or hindrance   is   caused   by   anyone therein.   Dr.   A.M.   Singhvi,   learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of   Jharkhand   through   the   Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police   has   very   fairly   assured   the Court   that   even   otherwise   it   is   the duty of the State and its high officials to take care to do so and the direction made by the Court shall be complied with in letter and spirit.” 14 The aforesaid directions were interim in nature and were passed on the basis of averments made in the petition duly supported by an affidavit. Writ petitions were directed to be listed on the date of hearing fixed. 24. Ten years later, in  Union of India v. Sh. Harish Chandra Singh Rawat,   (2016) SCC Online SC 442 , again an interim order was passed after the special leave petitions were taken up for hearing, though after concession which was made by Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, the then Attorney General for India, that the Union of India has no objection, which the Court had appreciated, to observe that the floor   test   should   be   conducted   on   a   special   session   of Uttarakhand Legislative Assembly to be summoned/convened in which the only agenda would be the vote of confidence sought by the first respondent and apart from the said agenda nothing will be discussed. Directions were issued to the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police, State of Uttarakhand, to see that all qualified Members of the Legislative Assembly, freely, safely and securely attend the Assembly and no hindrance is caused to them. The floor test was to commence at 11:00 a.m. and was directed to be completed by 1:00 p.m. There was another direction 15 that the Confidence Motion having been put, a division of the House shall take place and members inclined to vote in favour of the Motion shall sit on one side/wing and those voting against the Motion shall sit on the other side/wing. The entire proceedings were to be video­graphed and video recording was directed to be placed   before   the   Court   for   being   perused.   The   special   leave petitions were directed to be listed thereafter. 25. In   Chandrakant Kavlekar v. Union of India , (2017) 3 SCC 758 , the challenge raised was to a press note and communication from a leader of a party to the Governor of the State on the issue relating   to   whether   a  particular   party   had   misrepresented   the facts. Observing that the sensitive and contentious issue could be resolved by a simple direction requiring holding of the floor test at the earliest. This would remove all possible ambiguities and would result in giving the democratic process, the required credibility. By order dated 14.03.2017, the Governor of the State of Goa was requested   to   ensure   that   a   floor   test   is   held   on   16.03.2017. Further,   it   would   be   the   only   agenda   for   the   day   so   as   to determine whether the Chief Minister administered the oath of office   enjoys   the   support   of   the   majority.   The   order   further highlights that the floor test should be held as early as possible. 16 26. Lastly, we would refer to   G. Parmeshwara v. Union of India ,   wherein identical directions were issued in (2018) 16 SCC 46, respect of formation of Government in the State of Karnataka to test whether the Chief Minister so appointed enjoyed the majority support of the House. Noticing the fact that the elected members of the Legislative Assembly, as in the present case, were yet to take oath and the Speaker was also not elected, the following procedure was directed to be followed for conducting the floor test:

It was directed that the floor test would be conducted immediately the next date,  i.e. , the date following the order. 17 27. We   may   note   that   in   the   present   case,   oath   has   not   been administered to the elected members even though a month has elapsed since the declaration of election results. In such emergent facts and circumstances, to curtail unlawful practices such as horse   trading,   to   avoid   uncertainty   and   to   effectuate   smooth running of democracy by ensuring a stable Government, we are of the considered opinion that it is necessary to pass certain interim directions   in   this   case.   In   this   context,   it   is   necessary   and expedient   to   conduct   the   floor   test   as   soon   as   possible   to determine whether the Chief Minister, who was administered the oath of office, has the support of the majority or not. Since the elected members of the Legislative Assembly are yet to take oath as   specified   in   the   III   Schedule   of   the   Constitution,   and   the Speaker is also yet to be elected, we request the Governor of the State   of   Maharashtra   to   ensure   that   a   floor   test   be   held   on 27.11.2019.   The   following   procedure   is   to   be   followed   for conducting the floor test: a. Pro­tem  Speaker shall be solely appointed for  the aforesaid agenda immediately.  b. All the elected members shall take oath on  27.11.2019, which exercise should be  completed before 5:00 p.m. c. Immediately thereafter, the  Pro­tem  Speaker  shall conduct the floor test in order to  18 ascertain whether the Respondent No. 3 has  the majority, and these proceedings shall be  conducted in accordance with law. The floor  test will not be conducted by secret ballot. d. The proceedings have to be live telecast, and  appropriate arrangements are to be made to  ensure the same. 28. Eight  weeks  time  is   granted   to   the   learned   counsel   for   the respondents to file their respective counter affidavits.  Rejoinder affidavit, if any, is to be filed within four weeks thereafter. The matter to be listed after twelve weeks.  ..............................................J. (N.V. Ramana)  ..............................................J. (Ashok Bhushan) ..............................................J. (Sanjiv Khanna) NEW DELHI; November 26, 2019. 19