Political alliances should promote healthy democratic principles in that such alliances should be forged to promote common goals for the general good of the society.
Karnataka is in a political imbroglio on account of the on and off relationship among political parties having divergent viewpoints. The state has witnessed political marriages of convenience and breach of marital vows leading to “a situation in which the government cannot be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution”.
Therefore the President has, on receipt of a report from the governor, issued a proclamation under Article 356(1) of the Constitution keeping the Assembly in suspended animation.
Given the scheme of the Constitution, the Supreme Court in the case of S R Bommai vs Union of India ruled that the President has no power to dissolve the Legislative Assembly of a state under Article 356(1)(a) till the proclamation is approved by both Houses of Parliament under Article 356(3) of the Constitution.
After a proclamation is issued, placing the Assembly in suspended animation but before the Assembly is dissolved, it is conceivable that there could be political realignments. Such alignments should, in the interest of polity, be motivated by the larger interest of the state with certain common ideology or programmes.
Karnataka received a fractured mandate from the people, resulting in a coalition government being formed between Congress and JD(S) initially. Then emerged a coalition between JD(S) and BJP and on account of differences of opinion on issues, that coalition also failed, resulting in the present chaotic situation on the political horizon.
The two parties are now shaking hands with each other to set up another coalition government in the state.
Both the parties are anxiously awaiting an invitation from the governor to form the government but are getting restless at the silence from the Raj Bhavan. The constitutional position, as elucidated in the judgments of the Supreme Court in S R Bommai vs Union of India and Rameshwar Prasad vs Union of India (Bihar case) are as follows:
After an in depth analysis of the provisions of the Constitution and the Sarkaria Commission report, Rameshwar Prasad case states that the governor — in recommending dissolution of the Assembly — should act with the sole object of preservation of Constitution and not promotion of the political interest of one party or the other.
While recognising that defection is a great evil, the Supreme Court noted that the governor could not, while making a report under Article 356, take into account such criteria unless there was proof of instances of such actions which tore into the vitals of Indian democracy.
Political alliances should promote healthy democratic principles in that such alliances should be forged to promote common goals for the general good of the society. That a few persons may be catapulted to positions of power should be only incidental.
Unfortunately, the main object of such alliances has, of late, been to capture seats of power and not the promotion of any common objective for the well-being of the society. It could be said that such alliances are immoral, unholy and unethical. But the question still remains as to how far the governor, acting under Article 356, can take note of the same.
In the Rameshwar Prasad case, the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated “with all these imponderables, the Constitution does not contemplate dissolution of assemblies based on the assumption of such immoralities for formation of the satisfaction that situation has arisen in which the government cannot be of the Constitution”.
Recognising that the action of the President under Article 356 cannot be according to the personal whim, wish, view or opinion or ipsi dixit of the President, the Supreme Court has laid down that there could be no presumption of allurement or horse trading.
Noticing the trend of coalition governments, the Supreme Court has observed “minority governments are not unknown. It is also not unknown that despite various differences and perception, the party, group or MLAs may still not opt to take a step which may lead to the fall of the government for various reasons including their being not prepared to face elections.
These and many other imponderables can result in MLAs belonging to different political parties to come together. It does not necessarily lead to assumption of allurement or horse trading”.
Proceeding further, the Supreme Court has categorically laid down that “without highly cogent material, it would be wholly irrational for a Constitutional authority to deny the claim made by a party to form government only on the ground that the majority has been obtained by offering allurements and bribes, which deals have taken place in the cover of darkness, but his undisclosed sources have confirmed such deals”. The Supreme Court has also rejected the proposition that going back to the electorate is better than accepting the majority obtained improperly.
The governor is not an autocratic ombudsman. With regard to defections, it is to be noted that the power has been vested by the 10th Schedule of the Constitution on the Speaker and not with the governor.
Therefore, neither on the ground of upholding anti-defection law nor political ethics, the governor is justified in refusing to recognise the majority stitched together by rival political parties, however sinister the motive may be, namely, to grab power at the cost of political decency and morality.
