In the 1996 mid-term assembly polls, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won 174 seats, emerging as the single largest party in a 424-member house in undivided Uttar Pradesh. The BJP failed to muster support from any political party in a hung house.
Chief ministerial candidate Kalyan Singh staked his claim to form the government. The BJP, quoting the SR Bommai vs Union Govt (1994) judgment and other precedents, argued that the floor test was mandatory to prove a majority and
In the 1996 mid-term assembly polls, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) won 174 seats, emerging as the single largest party in a 424-member house in undivided Uttar Pradesh. The BJP failed to muster support from any political party in a hung house.
Chief ministerial candidate Kalyan Singh staked his claim to form the government. The BJP, quoting the SR Bommai vs Union Govt (1994) judgment and other precedents, argued that the floor test was mandatory to prove a majority and could not be decided by the governor at Raj Bhavan.
Significantly, political parties believe that an invitation from the Raj Bhavan/Rashtrapati Bhavan would secure them the requisite numbers in a hung house. After all, at the end of the cat and mouse game in a hung house, arithmetic plays a crucial role in deciding who will eventually wear the crown.
Governor Romesh Bhandari refused to invite Singh, citing a lack of a majority claim or a workable combination. Bhandari asserted that no party, including the BJP as the single largest party, had majority. Furthermore, no one approached him with proof of a majority, even though he had set an October 17 deadline to explore possibilities for government formation. His premise was that the governor should be convinced about the stability of the government. The poll results were announced on October 10.
Bhandari also cited President Shankar Dayal Sharma’s decision to invite Atal Bihari Vajpayee, leader of the single-largest party in the Lok Sabha to form the government in April 1996. Sharma had reasoned that in a hung house, the President should first invite the leader of the single largest party, as recommended by the Sarkaria Commission and precedents in the state assemblies. The claimant bore the burden of proving the majority.
The 1996 Lok Sabha polls resulted in a hung house with the BJP getting 161 seats and later mustering support from some regional parties. Vajpayee resigned after 13 days because he failed to prove his government’s majority.
Bhandari recommended imposing President’s rule in the state, sparking protests by the BJP. An angry Kalyan Singh called for a “Gherao Raj Bhavan.”
Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda supported Bhandari’s decision in Parliament.
Also Read:Keeping up with UP: Will women help BJP retain power
The assembly was put in abeyance and President’s rule was imposed until March 1997, when the BSP-BJP formed an alliance; the BSP dumped its pre-poll partner, the Congress. A government by rotation was formed with Mayawati serving as chief minister for the first six months.
Both Bhandari’s and Sharma’s decisions became debatable points, with the majority factor proving vital to government formation in later years. But governors’ decisions sometimes have political overtones as Bhandari exposed through his subsequent conflicting moves in quick succession.
A reluctant Mayawati handed over the baton of power to Kalyan Singh after six months but withdrew support within 20 days. Governor Bhandari did the following: he gave chief minister Singh 36 hours to prove his majority on the floor of the House and, in a rare move, appointed three independent observers to record the proceedings.
Drama followed with Kalyan Singh and then rising politician Rajnath Singh displaying their political skills, splitting all major Opposition groups. In October 1997, parties broke and Kalyan Singh proved his majority after chaos in the Vidhan Sabha.
Bhandari conceded the Opposition’s demand for the government’s dismissal, which the Cabinet approved after marathon sessions in Delhi. It recommended imposing President’s Rule under Article 356 of the Constitution in Uttar Pradesh and dissolving the state assembly.
The BJP swung into action and paraded 222 MLAs before President KR Narayanan the next day. The BJP also moved court, describing the governor’s action as mala fide. In an unprecedented move, President Narayanan asked the United Front government to reconsider its decision to invoke Article 356 of the Constitution because Kalyan Singh had proved his majority. The President also made it clear that he would not hesitate to seek legal advice if the government persisted with the move. The governor and the government reversed their decision.
The governor did not stay quiet for long. A few months later, in February 1998, yet another bid was made to topple the Kalyan Singh government. The plan was likely made by Bhandari, Samajwadi Party’s Mulayam Singh Yadav, the late Arjun Singh and his one-time acolyte, Jagdambika Pal, the president of the Loktantrik Congress Party.
In early February, all of them met in Jhansi at a common friend’s wedding reception. In view of the 1998 Lok Sabha elections, they discussed a fool-proof strategy to oust the BJP-led government in Uttar Pradesh. After hectic meetings and support from allies, Pal staked his claim to form the government even though his flock of 22 were not physically present with him. But he had the written support of all the other major political parties — the Congress,
Samajwadi party, Bahujan Samaj Party and the Communists. They submitted their letter of support to governor Romesh Bhandari on February 20, 1998.
The state was in the midst of elections, but Bhandari dismissed the Singh’s government and accepted the support letters at “face value,” plunging the state into its worst-ever constitutional crisis when, for a few hours, two chief ministers ran the state. He also administered the oath of office to a new cabinet under Pal’s leadership around 10.30pm. The BJP moved the court, which stayed the dismissal of the state government.
For 48 hours, Lucknow witnessed political upheaval. Even as Pal was getting ready for the next round, his 22-member LCP decided to do a volte face as they had last minute reservations on Pal as their leader and returned to Kalyan Singh.
The drama continued as legislators remained uncertain about the direction events would take.
Interestingly, Bhandari, who had not invited the single- largest party in 1996 to form the government because he needed convincing about its stability, did not question it a year later when Pal met him with 22 members.
Again, the BJP staged a dharna outside Rashtrapati Bhavan, moved the court but the state had “two chief ministers” from 11pm on February 21, 1998 to February 23, 1998. A three-member-bench of the apex court ordered a composite floor test at a specially convened session of the state assembly on February 26, 1998 to decide who commanded the majority. Kalyan Singh won.
The fact is quite often the constitutional heads are not guided by the Constitution of India, but by their personal whims or political loyalty.
Other interesting patterns influence the formation of fragile governments – the timing of the swearing-in ceremony and the timeframe given for the trust vote.
For instance, in Maharashtra, Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiari held the swearing-in ceremony at 8 am, while in Uttar Pradesh Romesh Bhandari had called for the swearing-in ceremony at 10:30 pm. There is always haste involved.
The timeframe for the confidence vote has often varied from seven to 15 days. Besides, the courts have had to intervene as the aggrieved party knocked on their door for justice, even at odd hours.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website