Madhya Pradesh Political Crisis : A journey from vote of trust to trust vote

There is a certain thing common between cricket and politics and that is uncertainty.

If we carefully look at the political scenario in North indian states, they show a regular political transition in every 5 years. Yes we too have some exceptions to it for example Mr. Shivraj Singh Chauhan of BJP who served as CM of Madhya Pradesh from November 2005 to December  2018 prior to him was the government of Mr. Digvijay Singh a congress leader who served as CM from 1993 to 2003.

It's rightly said that you can't keep everyone happy at the same time , this logic also fits in politics too , especially when you are having a coalition govt where you have to maintain the balance by considering interest of allies or another situation is when a political party receives absolute majority and still due intra party clashes the party can't provide a stable leadership.

Yes if we look at the present scenario and think that fall of congress govt is only sole example where they couldn't handle the intra party clashes and which resulted into downfall then I think we should look at the 12th assembly of 2003-2008 where almost the leadership of the state was changed thrice. 1st was the leadership of Uma bharati which lasted for 8 months which was replaced by babulal gaur yadav which lasted for almost 2 years and finally he was replaced by shivraj singh chauhan who served as CM for 13 years. Thus the 1st 2 years of BJP governments tenure too were unstable but somehow they managed the situation may it be of coalition or intra party clashes but atlast they gave a stable leadership. Though the political scenarios of 12th and 15th assembly of madhya pradesh are different altogether one thing is common that one party managed to work out through a crisis situation where as other one couldn't. 

In 2018 election for 15th assembly, Congress through its election manifesto made a lot of tall claims of providing unemployment allowance to unemployed youth, building cow shelters , promising farm loan waiver , and reducing electricity bills of farmers by 50%. Through these tall claims they managed to win 114 seats out of 230 where as bjp won 109 seats out of 230. Congress allied with political parties SP who won 1 seat and BSP who won 2 seats and independent who won 4 seats thus congress made a post-poll alliance of 121 seats in total and formed the govt.

The Political Chaos : 

Kamal nath while constituting his cabinet inducted 28 MLAs and left 6 ministerial berths vacant. Those 6 ministerial berths were alloted to sons & relatives of late congress leaders. Many senior leaders were ignored for those 6 ministerial berths. The election of speaker and deputy speaker of madhya pradesh legislative assembly was also won by congress thus it was a double jolt to bjp in assembly. The move of congress leadership to keep aside many senior leaders from ministerial position hurted the political ambitions of many senior congress leaders which include jyotiraditya scindia. This was the beginning of a indirect rebellion against the leadership in congress.

To add on to existing intra party political problems , income tax raids were conducted at residences and establishments of kamal naths political advisor R.K.Miglani and his OSD in Secretariat praveen kakkar. This incident brought the kamal naths govt under scanner once again. Umang Singhar a tribal leader and forest minister in kamal naths govt accused senior congress leader digvijay singh for interfering in govt business. Thus all of the above events show a feeling of uncomfortableness started to surface within congress and it's allies. To add oil into fire 19 congress MLA out of which 6 were ministers from Gwalior chambal region went incommunicado (that is not wish to communicate with anyone) taking the advantage of unrest jyotiraditya scindia a senior congress leader resigns from congress. This was the major blow to congress govt and party too. It is very surprising that how top congress leadership failed to read the intentions of their own party members. If people think that resignation of scindia was a sudden move then this would be wrong because if we go back to 6th August 2019 the day when 7 congress MPs backed the abrogation of Article 370 out of those 7 MPs one was jyotiraditya scindia. This very indirect rebellious act of senior congress leader was 1st signal of caution to congress leadership but unfortunately they failed to sense it.

             As the news of migration of 19 congress MLAs spreads on one hand on other hand 3 congress MLAs join those 19 migrated MLAs so now total 22 congress MLAs have migrated. The 19 MLAs send their resignation to governor via email and the copy of resignation letters are submitted to speaker by BJP MLA bhupendra singh , the remaining 3 congress MLAs submit their resignation to speaker one by one on the same day. Meanwhile kamal nath met Madhya Pradesh governor Lalji Tondon requesting him in his official capacity to rescue the rebel MLAs from bjp captivity. On next day speaker prajapati accepts the resignation of 6 rebel MLAs who happened to be ministers. On the same day bjp delegation led by shivraj singh chauhan meet governor and handing over the letter and requesting him to ask the minority govt of kamal nath to prove it's majority in floor test. In midnight governor asks kamal nath to seek trust vote on 1st day of assembly's budget session after the governors address. 

              CM kamal nath states that he enjoys majority and there is no meaning to floor test when his party's MLAs are held captive by BJP. The assembly is adjourned on 1st day by speaker stating the threat of corona virus outbreak. Seeing this bjp leader shivraj singh chouhan challenges the decision of speaker to adjourn house prior to assembly session. Kamal nath writes letter to governor in which he states that conducting a floor test in absence of 22 MLAs will be unconstitutional. Governor in his reply orders to conduct the floor test immediately otherwise the governor will presume that congress govt has lost majority in the house. Kamal nath challenges the bjp to come with no confidence motion. On the other hand bjp leaders meet governer and urge them to direct congress govt not to take any major policy decisions and make appointments in govt run boards and corporations. Meanwhile supreme court accepts the shivraj singh chouhans petition and orders a floor test in state assembly. Speaker accepts the resignation of remaining 16 MLAs.

Shivraj Singh Chauhan Vs Speaker of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly 2020. 

Now if we look at this issue through constitutional angle then following points were considered by Honourable Supreme Court in this case

-> applicability of anti defection law 

-> Role of speaker

-> Is there conflict between governor and speaker.

-> Role of governor 

-> floor test 

-> no confidence motion

Applicability of Anti-Defection Law : 

The resignations of the rebel MLAs are genuine and free from coercion as per Article 190 of Constitution. Moreover speaker can take defection case only when he/she receives a complaint from the member of the house which in this case has not happened. If a member of house in public domain violates the discipline of party then he is suspended and a suspended member from political party cannot be disqualified from membership of house. Now a days when political rebellion takes place MLAs or MPs generally resign inorder to avoid anti-defection law. If MLAs/MPs  don't resign and if ruling party issues whip and if they go against whip then they will attract anti detection law. 

Role of speaker : 

Now as per 52nd amendment act of 1985 the anti defection law was introduced. But it was found that politicians started to exploit the loopholes of law by easily defecting 1/3rd of the total members of party. This 91st amendment act of 2003 was introduced as per which 2/3rd of political party form a separate group or join another party then it would be a merger thus the members will not be disqualified. Now it became difficult for the politician to break the coalition. So the politicians started to misuse the powers of speakers office in deciding matters of disqualification since 2003. Now in initial stages the decision of speaker was not subjected to judicial review. But in the kihoto hollohan vs zachilhu case of 1993 the supreme court stated that the decision of speaker to to disqualify a member is subjected to judicial review. Thus a disqualification of member can be challenged in court of law. Now the Constitution of india doesn't mention any time limit for the speaker to decide on resignation given to him. Here the point is in total 22 MLAs resigned out of which 6 resignations of MLAs who were ministers were accepted by speaker and the decision to accept or reject the resignation of 16 MLAs was kept pending by the speaker. Now, the task before the court was to decide on resignations of 16 MLAs, the court suggested to Respondents/Congress lawyers that the court will appoint a neutral observer to ensure that the resignations contain the MLAs free will and according to the court this was the quickest way to solve this political crisis. But the respondents/congress lawyers rejected the suggestion. The petitioner/bjp lawyers stated that Constitution doesn't mention that MLAs should in order to present the resignation and to get it accepted by the speaker should be physically in front of him. On this argument court stated that the govt/executive has no power to accept or decide on the resignations of MLAs but the office of speaker has that power.

Is there Conflict between Governor & Speaker : 

Another important task before the court was 

-> to intervene in the conflict of governor vs speaker 

OR 

-> to let governor follow the constitutional norms. Here the term to follow the constitutional norms consist of 2 options, 1st call for a floor test and 2nd send report to president which means that as per article 356 governor can dismiss the state govt on the ground of not carrying out administration according to Constitution.

Role of Governor : 

In this case the court also checked whether the governor went beyond his powers or not? So, here the respondents/congress lawyers argued that the governor has the power to summon the house and once it is summoned the speaker has the power to conduct the business of house. The governor is back in power when the house is prorogued or dissolved. The respondents/congress lawyers asked the court that "How does the governor himself can arrive at the conclusion that the goverment has lost the majority, & when the resignations of rebel MLAs have not been accepted by speaker? The court replied to respondents stating that governor on one hand doesn't have "Carte Blanche" [that is complete freedom to act as per ones wish] to destabilize the govt, but on other hand governor has "Modicum" [ that is small portion of authority] to call for trust vote. So, thus if the house is not in session and if the govt losses the majority then the governor has the power to direct the speaker to conduct the trust vote. 

Floor Test : 

Now as per the Constitution the floor test can be conducted only in 2 scenarios, 1st when a no confidence motion is passed in running session of assembly & 2nd when a money bill fails to get passed . Petitioner/BJP lawyers argued that in political crisis there is no question of disqualification of MLAs as they have resigned & whether the speaker decides on resignations or not is totally out of question. Court in this case stated that during political crisis speaker cannot give the excuse of pendency of resignation to avoid or stall or postpone the floor test.

No Confidence Motion : 

The court asked petitioner/bjp lawyers why they don't go for no confidence motion. The petitioner quoted the famous S.R.Bommai case of 1994 in court to show that no confidence motion is not only the way to make govt fall. Petitioner gave the example of Karnataka floor test case of 2019 which was conducted in running session of Karnataka legislative assembly. Petitioner also stated that for utilizing the option of no confidence motion , the process of no confidence motion will take 2 weeks to get completed and in those 2 weeks there is high possibility of horse trading. 

What Next ? : 

29.Now what next , Madhya Pradesh assembly has total 230 seats , out of which 2 seats are vacant due to death. Thus effective strength of house is 230-2=228. Now the 22 MLAs have resigned so effective strength will be 228-22=206 and to form govt bjp needs half of effective strength +1 that is 104 but bjp has 107. Thus anti defection law is made irrelevant by utilizing the resignation of MLAs to decrease the strength of house. And considering the question of 22 rebel MLAs they will contest bye-election on BJP ticket.

Conclusion : 

Thus this indicates the voters in the constituency are least concerned about the party , ideology of the party, his affinity towards party, all they simply care is about their representative. Thus this is the current trend of electorate in this country. In short it won't be wrong to label Madhya Pradesh political crisis as version 2 of karnataka political crisis. 

Written By : Vedang Deshpande

Date : 29th March 2020

Time : 10:26 PM Pune, India.