The Supreme Court of India, in a unanimous judgment delivered on 11 May 2023, held that the Governor of Maharashtra acted unconstitutionally in directing a floor test during the June 2022 political crisis without possessing objective material to conclude that the then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray had lost the confidence of the Legislative Assembly. The five-judge Constitution Bench, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, however held that it could not restore the status quo ante since Thackeray had voluntarily resigned before the floor test.
Background
The case arose from the Maharashtra political crisis of June 2022, when Eknath Shinde and a faction of Shiv Sena legislators revolted against then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray. The rebel faction, comprising over two-thirds of the Shiv Sena legislative party, moved out of the state. The Governor subsequently called for a floor test, following which Thackeray resigned as Chief Minister before the test could be conducted. Shinde was then invited to form the government with BJP support.
Subhash Desai, a senior Shiv Sena leader aligned with the Thackeray faction, challenged the Governor's actions and the subsequent formation of the Shinde government. The case required the Constitution Bench to examine the intersection of the Governor's powers under Article 174, the Speaker's jurisdiction over disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, and the limits on judicial review of intra-party disputes.
Key Holdings
The Constitution Bench delivered the following determinations:
Floor test direction unconstitutional: The Governor's direction for a floor test was held to be illegal and unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Governor did not possess any objective material to form the satisfaction that the incumbent government had lost the confidence of the House. The rebel faction's mere departure from the state and their letters to the Governor did not constitute sufficient basis.
Governor cannot enter the political arena: The Bench held that the Governor must not enter the political thicket and cannot act on the basis of claims by political factions. The Governor's power to direct a floor test is subject to the requirement of objective, verifiable material demonstrating loss of majority.
Speaker's obligation under Tenth Schedule: The Court observed that the Speaker was bound to decide the disqualification petitions filed against the rebel MLAs within a reasonable timeframe. The Speaker's inaction on pending disqualification petitions while the political crisis unfolded was noted with concern.
Restoration not possible: Despite finding the Governor's action unconstitutional, the Court held that restoring the status quo ante was not feasible because Thackeray had voluntarily resigned before the floor test. The resignation was an independent act that severed the causal chain between the Governor's illegal direction and the fall of the government.
Nabam Rebia reference: The Court referred the question of reconsideration of the earlier judgment in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker to a larger bench, recognising inconsistencies in the application of that decision to the Governor's role during pending disqualification proceedings.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment provides critical guidance on the constitutional limits of gubernatorial discretion in government formation and dissolution scenarios. Practitioners advising political parties during legislative crises must note that the Court has now firmly established that a Governor's floor test direction requires objective material — not mere claims from a rival faction — and that the decision is amenable to judicial review.
The practical difficulty highlighted by the judgment is significant: the Court found the Governor's action illegal but could not provide effective relief because the Chief Minister had resigned. This creates an incentive structure where an unconstitutional floor test direction, followed by a pre-emptive resignation, effectively shields the resulting government from judicial correction.
The reference of Nabam Rebia to a larger bench signals that the interplay between the Speaker's disqualification jurisdiction and the Governor's power to order a floor test remains unsettled. Constitutional law practitioners should watch for the larger bench hearing, which could fundamentally reshape anti-defection jurisprudence.