How governor messed up TN by being mindful of the Bommai verdict

The governor's actions were in clear violation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the S R Bommai vs Union of India verdict

There was uncertainty galore in Tamil Nadu for at least 10 days before the trust vote was held on Saturday. The governor's action came a lot under the scanner and many say that had he acted better, the crisis could have been avoided.

The question is whether Governor Vidyasagar Rao was right in swearing in E Palanisamy and directing him to face a floor test. The governor's actions were in clear violation of the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in the S R Bommai vs Union of India verdict. The verdict makes it clear that, 'the Constitution does not create an obligation that the political party forming the ministry should necessarily have a majority in the Legislature. Minority governments are not unknown. What is necessary is that government should enjoy the confidence of the House'."

More importantly, the verdict says that when the council of ministers have lost the confidence of the house, it is not a matter to be determined by the governor. It is a matter to be decided on the floor of the house. The house is the place where the democracy is in action. It is not for the governor to determine the said question on his own or on his own verification. This is not a matter within his subjective satisfaction. It is an objective fact capable of being established on the floor of the house.

Going by this logic, it should have been O Panneerselvam who should have taken the floor test. At the time of his resignation as chief minister, he had the support of a majority of the MLAs on the floor of the house. Neither OPS nor Sasikala claimed the AIADMK at that time.

Interestingly, OPS also claimed that he had the numbers. He alleged that the MLAs were kept in captivity and hence he was unable to get the letters of support from them. The governor did not give OPS the benefit of the doubt after he had alleged that he had resigned as CM under duress. When such doubts are raised, the governor should have not only looked into it, but also should have also directed him to take a floor test.

The actions of the governor appeared as though he was interfering in the internal matters of the AIADMK. Both the OPS and Sasikala factions were at logger-heads with each other. The other point that needs to be noted here is that the governor did not need to call for a floor test. The Bommai verdict would have been applicable only if the members of the legislature crossed over and the strength of the AIADMK was in question.

However, neither factions claimed the AIADMK in this case. OPS was the incumbent chief minister. A floor test is taken to verify the majority support of the incumbent government, which is reduced to a minority. What was wrong was that the governor ascertained the majority support on his own and did not leave it to the assembly to do so. OPS had requested the governor several times to give him a chance. As per the Bommai verdict OPS ought to have been given that chance first.

Had there been doubts, the governor could have gone with the advise of Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi, who had suggested conducting a composite floor test, by way of which both parties would have got a chance.

OneIndia News