Anti-Defection, Speaker's Recognition and Dissolution
A State Legislative Assembly has 120 members: Party A has 70, Party B 40, and 10 are independents. Ten MLAs of Party A write to the Speaker that the party's working president has lost the confidence of the legislature party; they announce a separate group, and a week later join Party B. The Speaker recognises the group as a separate party and allots it a symbol, relying on a pre-2003 precedent. The Governor asks the Chief Minister to prove majority on the floor of the House. The Chief Minister instead advises dissolution of the Assembly. The Speaker then disqualifies the ten MLAs under the Tenth Schedule, and the Assembly is dissolved the next day. A writ petition challenges the Speaker's recognition, the disqualification and the dissolution. The petitioners argue that the Speaker could not create a new party; the respondents rely on the Speaker's power under paragraph 6 and on the Governor's discretion.
1. Was the Speaker's recognition of the breakaway group as a separate party valid after the 91st Amendment?
Read the worked answer
The recognition is not sustainable. The Tenth Schedule was amended by the 91st Amendment in 2003, which omitted paragraph 3 and abolished the split exception. After that, the only exception is merger under paragraph 4, which requires at least two-thirds of the members of the legislature party to agree to merge with another party. Ten out of 70 is about 14 per cent, far below two-thirds. The Speaker's power under paragraph 6 is to decide disqualification, not to create a new party or to confer party status. Symbol allocation is governed by the Election Commission's Symbols Order, not by the Speaker. A pre-2003 precedent cannot justify a post-2003 recognition. The Speaker's order recognising the group as a separate party is therefore without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.
2. What is the effect of the disqualification order and the subsequent dissolution of the Assembly?
Read the worked answer
The disqualification order must be tested on jurisdiction and procedure. If the Speaker had a valid petition and applied paragraph 2(1)(a) - voluntarily giving up membership - the order can operate even if the Assembly is dissolved later; dissolution does not retrospectively validate an invalid order, nor does it erase a valid disqualification. But the timing matters: if the order was passed after the CM advised dissolution and was designed to prevent a floor test, the court may examine mala fides and the Speaker's compliance with natural justice. The disqualification of ten members also affects the party composition, but after dissolution the immediate effect is limited. The writ court can quash the recognition and the disqualification if they were colourable exercises of power, while leaving the election process to the Election Commission.
3. Advise the Governor on whether the Chief Minister's advice of dissolution should have been accepted.
Read the worked answer
The Governor should not accept a dissolution advice that is designed to avoid a floor test. Under Articles 163 and 174, the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, but in a hung Assembly or after a loss of majority, the Governor can require a floor test. The Sarkaria Commission and later Supreme Court decisions recognise that dissolution should be refused where the government's majority is doubtful and a floor test can resolve it. The proper course is to summon the House, fix a date for the floor test, and allow the Chief Minister to prove majority. If the Chief Minister refuses, the Governor may explore an alternative government. The dissolution, if already ordered, can be judicially reviewed, but the court usually avoids undoing a dissolution and confines itself to declaring the constitutional position.