What Is A "Floor Test"? Explained With Important Supreme Court Judgments

Amidst the political imbroglio in Maharashtra, the Governor has directed the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) Government to take a 'floor test' and demonstrate that it still enjoys the confidence of the Legislature on the floor of the Legislative Assembly on June 30.While the Constitution of India does not contemplate that the political party which forms the Ministry should have a majority in the Legislature, the Council of Ministers should command the confidence of the Legislature, which enjoys the will of the people. The floor test upholds the collective accountability of the elected government to the legislature. The principle of democracy enshrined in the Constitution demands that the issue, whether the Government commands the confidence of the House be left to a vote in the Legislative Assembly. An exception to this rule can be made only under extraordinary situations, where because of the existence of 'all pervasive atmosphere of violence', the members of the House 'cannot express their opinion freely'(Justice Jeevan Reddy's judgment in SR Bommai case). Generally, the Governor is approached to summon the House when it is not in session. However, when in session a no confidence motion can be initiated following the procedure mentioned in the Rules of the concerned House. (For example Lok Sabha; Rule 198).Governor can ask Government to prove majority in floor testIn Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Speaker, Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh And Ors., the Supreme Court clarified that the Governor is empowered to issue a direction to an incumbent Chief Minister to hold a floor test and to demonstrate the Legislature's trust in their Government. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that the Governor is also entrusted with the constitutional authority to require the Council of Ministers to prove their majority on the floor of the House right after the general elections are held. In the said judgment the Apex Court had acknowledged that the largest number of precedent before it had dealt with floor tests called upon at the time of formation of the Government, but emphasised that the Governor is, nonetheless, empowered to direct 'floor test' of an incumbent Council. In case a floor test is required at the initial stage of formation of the Government; when the elected members of the legislature are yet to take oath and the Speaker is not elected, a Protem Speaker is appointed to conduct it. As per convention, the senior most member of the House is called upon by the Governor to assume the role of the Protem Speaker. In G. Parameshwara v. Union of India(Karnataka assembly case 2018), the Supreme Court directed the appointment of a Protem Speaker for the purpose of conducting the floor test. The procedure enumerated by the Court in the Karnataka assembly case(a case where the question was which coalition was in majority soon after elections) was as under -"A). Pro-tem Speaker shall be appointed for the aforesaid purpose immediately.B). All the elected members shall take oath tomorrow(19.05.2018) and this exercise shall be completed before 04.00 p.m.C) The Pro-tem Speaker shall conduct the Floor Test on 19.05.2018 at 04.00 P.M. in order to ascertain the majority.D) Adequate and sufficient security arrangements shall be made and Director General of Police, State of Karnataka will himself supervise the said arrangements so that there is no lapse on this count whatsoever."A similar procedure was laid down by the Supreme Court for conducting the floor test in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for formation of the Government in 2019. Soon after the 2019 general elections, when uncertainty arose as to which coalition had majority, Shiv Sena had approached the Supreme Court, and acting on its petition, the Court directed the Governor to hold floor test and set a deadline for it(Shiv Sena vs Union of India).Floor test to be conducted immediately to prevent "horse-trading"The reason behind the insistence on conducting the floor test at the earliest, as elucidated in Shiv Sena (supra), is the possibility of horse trading. Therefore, the Supreme Court is of the view that an immediate floor test is the most effective mechanism to protect the democratic value."In a situation wherein, if the floor test is delayed, there is a 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", the bench of Justices NV Ramana, Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna said in the order.Court can ask for house to be summoned specifically for the purpose of floor testOn several occasions the Supreme Court had passed directions to conduct floor test. In Shiv Sena And Ors. v. Union of India And Ors, when the Solicitor General had argued that Article 212 bars the Courts from monitoring the proceedings of the House, the Apex Court referred to its earlier judgments to demonstrate that it had previously summoned the Assembly...

What Is A "Floor Test"? Explained With Important Supreme Court Judgments

Sohini Chowdhury

Tags