Most lawyers were under the impression that despite nine judges of the Supreme Court, speaking through six separate judgments, the Bommai verdict was fairly clear as to the duties of a governor while recommending dismissal of an elected state government.

Two such broad discernible principles of law are declared: loss of majority support to a government has to be tested only on the floor of the House and dissolution of the Legislative Assembly is to be resorted to only after the Presidential proclamation is approved by Parliament.

One may recall that on April 20, 1989 when S R Bommai was the chief minister, a few MLAs sent a letter to the governor stating that they had withdrawn support to the government. On that basis, the governor recommended imposition of President’s rule. That report was accepted and the Assembly was dissolved on April 21 without heeding the Cabinet’s request for summoning the Assembly for seeking a vote of confidence.

This decision nowhere laid down that a governor facing the situation, as it is in Karnataka should resort only to “floor test” to determine whether or not a stable democratic government can be formed. The confusion is on account of the majority decision in the recent Bihar case of Rameshwar Prasad (2006) — and confounded by the innumerable advices that the governor receives, solicited and mostly gratis.

Buta Singh, the governor of Bihar in March 2005 had to form a government out of a House with the following figures — NDA 92; RJD and friends 91: LJP 29 and others in single digits. Buta Singh’s arithmetic was right — to constitute a majority in a House with 243 MLAs a party or group claiming to form the government needed the support of 122. However, neither of the two major groups could cross 92 and the third block of 29 was unwilling to join either group. So he saw the failure of the constitutional machinery and made a report accordingly. The Presidential proclamation was issued on March 07, 2005. In May 2005 some members of the LJP apparently showed signs of melting and merging with JD(U). However, on May 21, 2005, the governor recommended dissolution of the House and the President accepted it.

The decision was challenged before the Supreme Court. By the time arguments were concluded, fresh elections were announced. But the court, on October 7, 2005 allowed the challenge and held the Proclamation unconstitutional.

However, the dictum is causing problems to Karnataka Governor Rameshwar Thakur. He was thrust into the scene after JD(S) refused to relinquish power in favour of the BJP. On the governor’s refusal to tolerate a CM without support, Kumaraswamy had to resign on Oct 7. Soon the BJP and JD(S) unanimously sought dissolution of the House. If the governor were to accept the demand then, there would have been no problem — but he allowed time to pass and in the meanwhile, JD(S) agreed to extend support for BJP.

If the governor has to look no more than at the numbers — he should recommend withdrawal of President’s Rule and invite BJP-JD(S) to form a government. But if he is permitted to go a little into reality, he should prevent rank opportunism getting labelled as a democratic government.

Continuing with the ‘status quo’ until the Proclamation is approved by Parliament may help evolution of acceptable solutions. By then, hopefully, the atmosphere would have settled down.


(The writer is an advocate)