India
oi-Vicky Nanjappa
The
Supreme
Court
has
on
several
occasions
said
that
the
Governor
is
not
bound
by
the
advise
of
the
council
of
ministers
New
Delhi,
Jun
23:
The
role
of
the
Governor
and
the
advise
of
the
council
of
ministers
is
back
in
the
narrative
as
Maharashtra
faces
a
political
crisis.
If
Uddhav
Thackeray
decides
to
dissolve
the
assembly
and
go
in
for
fresh
elections,
the
question
arises
whether
the
Governor
is
bound
by
that
decision.
The
decision
to
dissolve
the
assembly
can
take
place
only
if
the
Chief
Minister
and
Governor
are
on
the
same
page
like
we
saw
in
the
case
of
Telangana
Chief
Minister
K
Chandrashekar
Rao
in
2018.
Rao
had
advised
the
Governor
E
S
L
Narasimhan
to
dissolve
the
assembly
when
six
months
of
its
term
was
remaining.
The
Governor
agreed
to
the
same
and
the
assembly
was
dissolved
as
both
were
on
the
same
page.
IN
the
State
of
Gujarat
vs
Justice
R
A
Mehtra
case,
the
Supreme
Court
held
that
it
is
the
decision
of
the
Governor
whether
or
not
to
accept
the
advise
of
a
chief
minister
and
council
of
ministers
to
dissolve
the
government.
In
this
context
one
would
have
to
look
at
Article
163
of
the
Indian
Constitution
which
deals
with
the
advise
of
the
council
of
ministers
to
the
Governor
of
a
state.
There
shall
be
a
council
of
Ministers
with
the
chief
Minister
at
the
head
to
aid
and
advise
the
Governor
in
the
exercise
of
his
functions,
except
in
so
far
as
he
is
by
or
under
this
constitution
required
to
exercise
his
functions
or
any
of
them
in
his
discretion,
the
Article
states.
If
any
question
arises
whether
any
matter
is
or
is
not
a
matter
as
respects
which
the
Governor
is
by
or
under
this
Constitution
required
to
act
in
his
discretion,
the
decision
of
the
Governor
in
his
discretion
shall
be
final,
and
the
validity
of
anything
done
by
the
Governor
shall
not
be
called
in
question
on
the
ground
that
he
ought
or
ought
not
to
have
acted
in
his
discretion,
it
also
states
while
making
it
clear
that
it
is
the
Governor
who
shall
have
the
final
say.
The
question
whether
any,
and
if
so
what,
advice
was
tendered
by
Ministers
to
the
Governor
shall
not
be
inquired
into
in
any
court,
the
Article
also
states
while
clearing
defining
the
powers
of
a
Governor.
In
the
Rameshwar
Prasad
and
Ors
vs
Union
of
India
and
Anr
judgment,
the
Supreme
Court
clarified
that
the
discretion
a
Governor
could
exercise
under
Article
163
obligated
them
to
do
so
only
if
there
is
a
situation
that
requires
a
compelling
necessity.
The
court
said
that
the
necessity
to
exercise
such
powers
may
arise
from
the
express
provision
of
the
Constitution
or
necessary
implication.
When
it
comes
to
the
powers
of
a
Governor
in
dissolving
the
house
one
has
to
read
into
Article
174(1)
of
the
Indian
Constitution.
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
says
Article
174(1).
The
Governor
may
from
time
to
time
prorogue
the
house
or
either
house
and
dissolve
the
Legislative
Assembly,
Article
174
(2)
(a)
(b)
states.
In
the
S
R
Bommai
landmark
nine
judge
verdict
the
Supreme
Court
clearly
defined
the
supremacy
of
a
floor
test.
The
floor
test
shall
determine
the
support
enjoyed
by
the
party
in
power.
“Wherever
a
doubt
arises
whether
the
council
of
ministers
has
lost
the
confidence
of
the
House,
the
only
way
of
testing
it
is
on
the
floor
of
the
House
except
in
an
extraordinary
situation
where
because
of
all-pervasive
violence,
the
governor
comes
to
the
conclusion
and
records
the
same
in
his
report
that
for
the
reasons
mentioned
by
him,
a
free
vote
is
not
possible
in
the
House,”
the
Supreme
Court
said
in
1994.
Hence
in
this
case
if
Uddhav
Thackeray
approaches
the
Governor
and
recommends
dissolution
of
the
House,
then
it
is
the
discretion
of
the
Governor
to
act
upon
it
or
not.
Story first published: Thursday, June 23, 2022, 8:25 [IST]