[ad_1]
NEW DELHI: As Rajasthan Congress MLAs demand summoning of the state assembly, a reading of the Supreme Court’s rulings do not leave much scope for the governor to exercise his discretion once the state cabinet has recommended convening of a session.
Questions whether the governor, in exercise of his powers under Article 174, could defy or delay advice of the Ashok Gehlot government are answered by the view that this can be done only when the government’s majority is in doubt.
With Congress disinclined to engage in further legal battles after failing to gain any favourable decision either from the Rajasthan HC or the SC, the spotlight is on Raj Bhavan.
Article 174 of the Constitution says, “The governor shall from time to time summon the House or each House of the legislature of the state to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.”
Does this mean the governor has discretion to summon the House as per his assessment, disregarding the advice of the council of ministers headed by the CM? A five-judge bench of the SC in Nabam Rebia judgment (July 2016) scrutinised the provision in the draft constitution and its final version as Article 174 and ruled, “We are satisfied in concluding that the governor can summon, prorogue and dissolve the House only on the aid and advice of the council of ministers with CM as the head. And not on his own”.
The bench said, “We are of the view that in ordinary circumstances during the period when the CM and his council of ministers enjoy the confidence of the majority of the House, the power vested with the governor must be exercised in consonance with the aid and advice of CM and his council of ministers.”
In the above situation, he is precluded from taking an individual call on the issue at his own will, or in his own discretion. “In a situation where the governor has reasons to believe that CM and his council of ministers have lost the confidence of the House, it is open to the governor to require the CM and his council of ministers to prove their majority in the House, by a floor test. Only in a situation where the government in power on the holding of such a floor test is seen to have lost the confidence of the majority would it be open to the governor to exercise the powers vested with him under Article 174 at his own.”
Does the Rajasthan governor think that Gehlot government has lost its majority and he is not bound by its advice to summon the House as advised? Even then, the governor has to instruct the CM to prove his majority on the floor of the House and there are numerous SC judgments which bar the governor from taking a decision in Raj Bhavan on whether a government enjoys the confidence of the House or not.
The SC has repeatedly ruled that test of strength has to be on the floor of the House.
Questions whether the governor, in exercise of his powers under Article 174, could defy or delay advice of the Ashok Gehlot government are answered by the view that this can be done only when the government’s majority is in doubt.
With Congress disinclined to engage in further legal battles after failing to gain any favourable decision either from the Rajasthan HC or the SC, the spotlight is on Raj Bhavan.
Article 174 of the Constitution says, “The governor shall from time to time summon the House or each House of the legislature of the state to meet at such time and place as he thinks fit, but six months shall not intervene between its last sitting in one session and the date appointed for its first sitting in the next session.”
Does this mean the governor has discretion to summon the House as per his assessment, disregarding the advice of the council of ministers headed by the CM? A five-judge bench of the SC in Nabam Rebia judgment (July 2016) scrutinised the provision in the draft constitution and its final version as Article 174 and ruled, “We are satisfied in concluding that the governor can summon, prorogue and dissolve the House only on the aid and advice of the council of ministers with CM as the head. And not on his own”.
The bench said, “We are of the view that in ordinary circumstances during the period when the CM and his council of ministers enjoy the confidence of the majority of the House, the power vested with the governor must be exercised in consonance with the aid and advice of CM and his council of ministers.”
In the above situation, he is precluded from taking an individual call on the issue at his own will, or in his own discretion. “In a situation where the governor has reasons to believe that CM and his council of ministers have lost the confidence of the House, it is open to the governor to require the CM and his council of ministers to prove their majority in the House, by a floor test. Only in a situation where the government in power on the holding of such a floor test is seen to have lost the confidence of the majority would it be open to the governor to exercise the powers vested with him under Article 174 at his own.”
Does the Rajasthan governor think that Gehlot government has lost its majority and he is not bound by its advice to summon the House as advised? Even then, the governor has to instruct the CM to prove his majority on the floor of the House and there are numerous SC judgments which bar the governor from taking a decision in Raj Bhavan on whether a government enjoys the confidence of the House or not.
The SC has repeatedly ruled that test of strength has to be on the floor of the House.
[ad_2]
Source link