New Delhi, May 11: The governor of a state is not empowered to enter the political arena and play a role in inter-party or intra-party disputes, the Supreme Court said on Thursday, holding that the discretion exercised by then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari asking Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray to face a floor test was “not in accordance with law”.
However, the five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud held that the governor’s June 30, 2022 decision inviting Eknath Shinde to form a new government was justified since Thackeray had resigned without a trial of strength.
In a unanimous verdict on a batch of pleas related to the political crisis that led to the fall of the three-party Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government led by Thackeray following a revolt by the Shinde faction in the Shiv Sena, the apex court said the governor had “no objective material” on the basis of which he could doubt that the incumbent dispensation had lost confidence of the House.
It said the Constitution empowers elected representatives to act on behalf of the people and, consequently, the governor, who despite his constitutional status is unelected, is vested with limited discretionary powers.
The bench, also comprising Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha, said the power of the governor to act without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is of an “extraordinary nature” and exercise of such power has ramifications for parliamentary democracy.
“The Governor is the titular head of the State Government. He is a constitutional functionary who derives his authority from the Constitution. This being the case, the Governor must be cognizant of the constitutional bounds of the power vested in him. He cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the Constitution or a law made under it,” it said.
“Neither the Constitution nor the laws enacted by Parliament provide for a mechanism by which disputes amongst members of a particular political party can be settled. They certainly do not empower the Governor to enter the political arena and play a role (however minute) either in inter-party disputes or in intra-party disputes,” the bench said in its 141-page verdict. It said discretion to call for a floor test is not an “unfettered discretion” but one that must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law.
“There must be some objective material in addition to a mere request to call for a floor test. In the present case, the Governor did not have any objective material before him to indicate that the incumbent government had lost the confidence of the House and that he should call for a floor test. Hence, the exercise of discretion by the Governor in this case was not in accordance with law,” the bench noted. (PTI)
