Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik recently dissolved the State Assembly, amidst tussle in forming government.
The Governor’s decision seems to lack proper constitutional and legal rationality.
What was going on in J&K?
The Jammu and Kashmir State has been under Governor’s rule since June.
It was the time when BJP withdrew from the coalition and Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti, of Peoples Democratic Party, resigned.
The PDP and the National Conference had not initiated any move to form a popular government for months.
They had been idle for long, favouring fresh elections.
The Governor’s move came soon after PDP leader Mehbooba Mufti staked claim to form government.
She cited a collective strength of 56 MLAs in the 87-member House, with the support of the National Conference and Congress.
A separate claim to form a government was made by Sajad Gani Lone of the two-member People’s Conference.
He claimed support of the BJP and 18 MLAs from other parties.
What is the governor's rationale?
Mr. Malik’s stated reasons for his action are
extensive horse trading (vote trading)
the possibility that a government formed by parties with “opposing political ideologies” would not be stable
He also mentioned the fragile security scenario in the state, which calls for a stable and supportive environment for security forces.
Is the Governor's decision justified?
The Governor ought to have known that the Supreme Court has earlier disapproved these kinds of reasoning.
In Rameshwar Prasad (2006) case, the then Bihar Governor Buta Singh’s decision to dissolve the Assembly was held to be illegal and mala fide.
In Bihar, the Assembly was then in suspended animation as no party or combination had the requisite majority.
Alliances - With the BJP backing Sajjad Lone, the PDP may have sensed a danger to the unity of its 29-member legislature party.
It thus agreed to an unusual alliance with its political adversaries.
Describing such an alliance as opportunistic is fine as a political opinion; but it cannot be the basis for constitutional action.
As held by the Court, a Governor cannot shut out post-poll alliances altogether as one of the ways in which a popular government may be formed.
Horse trading - The court had said unsubstantiated claims of horse-trading or corruption for government formation cannot be cited as reasons to dissolve the Assembly.
Delay in forming government cannot be the reason for the Governor to dissolve the 87-member House.
Notably, the parties were just about to come together to form a likely 56-member bloc (more than required).
But the Governor has dissolved the Assembly without giving any claimant an opportunity to form the government.
Clearly, the J&K Governor's reasoning is irrelevant and the decision is violative of constitutional law and convention.
What should have been done?
The court has said it was the Governor’s duty to explore the possibility of forming a popular government.
He could not dissolve the House solely to prevent a combination from staking its claim.
Mr. Malik’s remarks that the PDP and the NC did not show proof of majority or parade MLAs indicate a disregard for the primacy accorded to a floor test.
In the interest of political stability in this sensitive State, it is essential that democratic processes are strengthened.
