The new situation arising in Karnataka — with the state Assembly in suspended animation, the BJP-Janata Dal (Secular) combine staking claim to form the government again and Congress party demanding dissolution of the House — has  given rise to a debate on what the Governor/Union Government should do to undo the imbroglio.

The situation that has presented itself is not uncommon – — several states have seen umpteen number of times fractured mandates leading to hung House and resultant political machinations. These have been experienced often in the recent past in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Goa.

Karnataka had not been a victim of such political stand off but the latest political stalemate has brought into fore a situation which is little different from other states.

It is the story of the same set of parties, which parted ways just weeks ago, coming together to form government again, never mind the street-fight they indulged in. The closest the country came to such a situation was in 1979, when the then Prime Minister Charan Singh resigned without facing Parliament.

Morarji Desai, whose resignation led to Singh becoming the PM, once again staked claim to form the government.

However, then Acting President N Sanjiva Reddy refused to entertain his claim saying that Desai had already been tried once and he was not expected to give a stable government. New elections were called.

What do legal luminaries say of the Karnataka situation? The opinions are mixed as the top legal brains expressed both shades of opinion — that the House should be convened immediately to test claim as well as that the elections should be announced immediately so that a new government takes over.

Senior advocate of the Supreme Court Rajeev Dhawan says a very immoral situation has been created in Karnataka over the last few weeks. “This whole business of two parties coming together, mid-way exchange of chief minister, reneging on agreement, is nothing but taking the electorate for a ride. It is gross breach of people’s mandate”.

Given immorality that is generated, the way in which the power was abused, Karnataka needs elections, he opines. “The sooner elections are held, the better. The governor giving long gap was not at all needed. Such long gaps can bring in suitcase politics. We are concerned about it”.

According to apex court advocate Mohan Katarki, both BJP and JD(S) withdrew support to each other and requested the governor to seek fresh mandate. “Thus, having committed to the fresh mandate, is it open for both the parties to ask for installation of their government? It is within the discretion of the governor to say no and in such a case he cannot be faulted”.

According to him, under article 164(1) the governor appointing the chief minister should be guided by these factors:

1) in 2004, people elected a hung Assembly giving no clear mandate,

2) two coalitions were tried and they failed,

3) JD has accused BJP as communal and expected a Gujarat situation if it came to power

4) both BJP and JD(S) have publicly committed for fresh mandate after ending alliances three weeks back

5) no new circumstances have come arisen since the last three weeks.

Former Karnataka law minister D B Chandre Gowda says the Bommai judgement is not applicable to the Karnataka situation though keeping the House in suspended animation arose out of the same order. “The judgement came to be highlighted because Bommai was not given chance to prove his majority. In the present case, it is not so as the two parties were in power and one withdrew support to the other. If the alliance is given the chance, there is question of stability as the issue of suspension of 40 MLAs of JD(S) is still before the Speaker”.

However, senior Supreme Court advocates P P Rao and Anil Divan have different opinions.

According to Rao, formation of the government should be the priority before the Governor. “If B S Yeddyurappa is enjoying the majority support, he should be called. If anybody is disputing the claim, the governor has one more option — that of convening the Assembly and asking the House to choose its leader and declaring that leader the chief minister. The SC had preferred it twice — in Jharkhand and Uttar Pradesh. In Karnataka, the Assembly is still intact and all efforts should be made to form a popular government”.

For Divan, calling the same parties is of no consequence. “It is not the ground to deny any party the opportunity to form the government. The governor should make every effort to see a popular government is in place. It is important that those claiming majority should be given opportunity to form government”.