The formation of the new government on March 19 in Shillong by the Meghalaya Progressive Alliance coalition (MPA) on the resignation of Chief Minister D.D. Lapang — on account of his Congress-led Meghalaya United Alliance not being able to secure the support of a majority of MLAs — vindicates the statesmanship and judicial restraint of the Supreme Court in declining to interfere in the self-determination of the majority by members of the legislative assembly themselves. A day after the governor invited Lapang to form the government on March 11, a bench of the Supreme Court was moved by the MPA to pass an urgent order to stay the action of the governor in inviting Lapang with 25 members when the MPA coalition had a strength of 31 members in an assembly of 60. The governor’s action was described as illegal and favouring the Congress. The court declined to stay the governor’s invitation to Lapang. It observed that if the petitioners were right it would be proved by the result of the vote of confidence to be taken 10 days later as directed by the governor. The court was then pressed for an order to reduce the period for securing a confidence vote, since it was feared that the members of the MPA coalition might be bought over. This self-condemnatory plea was also rejected by the court.The court firmly rooted its non-interference in the principle of the floor test of the majority by the assembly itself as prescribed in the Bommai case, wisely keeping itself aloof from the dust and din of party politics. It also upheld the principle of separation of powers in our Constitution and the autonomy of the legislatures. It is a cardinal principle of the Constitution that the court does not interfere in the internal working of the legislature, just as the legislature does not interfere in the working of the courts or criticise judges in the exercise of their judicial functions.The Supreme Court’s order of non-interference in the Meghalaya case contrasts sharply with the highly dubious order of the court in the Jharkhand assembly case on March 9, 2005, when it passed an interim order during the lunch interval, virtually taking over the proceedings of the Jharkhand assembly for the next two days. It directed the oath to be administered to the newly elected members in the next two days and directed the pro-tem speaker to have only the vote of confidence on the agenda. The court then solemnly warned that the proceedings in the assembly should be “totally peaceful, and disturbance, if any, caused therein shall be viewed seriously”. It even ordered that the proceedings should be videotaped. Earlier, on February 24, 1999, the court had passed an order in the case of the UP assembly ordering a floor test to prove the majority between rival factions. The orders in the Jharkhand and UP assembly cases have been strongly criticised by eminent jurists as unwarranted interference in the affairs of a legislature. As expected, the orders in the Jharkhand and UP cases were cited as precedents for the intervention of the court in the Meghalaya case, but the court did not consider them persuasive. There is no doubt that governors, speakers and members of the legislatures do misuse their powers. There is a highly compelling appeal to the court in such cases and a strong temptation for courts to set right the sorry state of manipulation. In the Meghalaya case, the governor’s action has been described by some as blatantly partisan. But the governor may have believed that the single largest party should be given the first chance. That is what the former president, S.D. Sharma believed when he invited A.B. Vajpayee in 1996 to form the government since the BJP was the single largest party in the Lok Sabha. Besides, the governor as the man on the spot may also be more aware of the prospects of a cobbled-up coalition. In the face of such imponderables, the best course was to let the assembly decide the majority by an early vote of confidence, an expedient which has almost become a constitutional convention by now. The court’s non-interference avoided the complications of a prolonged legal contest, which would have ensued had it stayed the governor’s invitation to Lapang. As it so transpired, Lapang’s resignation and the assumption of the chief minister’s office by Donkupar Roy of the MPA came about cordially.The writer is a senior advocate and a former solicitor-general of India tehmtan@bol.net.in
