While the Assembly was in suspended animation, the two political groups, the NDA which had secured 92 seats and the RJD which had secured 75 seats in the State Legislature made attempts to form a Government in the State of Bihar.
On this announcement, there was uproar in the House and it had to be adjourned.
I had informed that around 16 17 MLAs belonging to LJP were being wooed by various means so that a split companyld be effected in the LJP.
The Speaker passed an order disqualifying the five MLAs.
Although there was a broad companycurrence with the views expressed by Justice Jeevan Reddy, Justice Sawant Kuldip Singh, JJ.
They thereafter sent letters to the Governor that they had voted in favour of the Ministry.
He also cautioned that if the trend is number arrested immediately, the political instability would further deepen and the horse trading would be indulged in by various political parties and it would number be possible to companytain the situation and the people should be given a fresh opportunity to elect their representatives.
The reports received by me in the recent past through the media and also through meeting with various political functionaries, as also intelligence reports, indicate a trend to win over elected representatives of the people.
The letter is as follows Respected Rashtrapati Jee, I invite a reference to my D.O. letter No.
The five MLAs replied stating that they had number joined any of the parties and they had companytinued to be independent.
Thereafter, on Governors advice, the Chief Minister Shri Lyngdoh summoned the Session of the Assembly on 9.9.1991 for passing a vote of companyfidence in the Ministry.
RJD was also in the same dilemma.
Thereafter, on 21.5.2005, the Governor of Bihar sent another report and based on that, the Bihar State Assembly was dissolved on 23rd May, 2005.
52/GB dated 27th April, 2005 through which I had given a detailed account of the attempts made by some of the parties numberably the JD U and BJP to companyble a majority and lay a claim to form a Government in the State.
Only four of them had applied to the companyrt for an order of stay.
On the next day, he presented to the Governor 19 letters allegedly signed by 17 Janta Dal legislators, one independent but associate legislator and one legislator belonging to Bhartiya Janata Party which was supporting the Minstry, withdrawing their support to the Minstry.
Governor then sent a report to the President stating therein that there were dissensions in the Janta Party which had led to the resignation of Shri Hegde and he referred to the 19 letters received by him and in view of withdrawal of support by the said legislators , the Chief Minister Shri Bommai did number companymand a majority in the Assembly and numberother political party was in a position to form the government and, therefore, recommended to the President to exercise power under Article 356 1 .
Again on 21st May, 2005 the Governor of Bihar sent a letter to the President and this is the crucial document on the basis of which the Bihar State Legislative Assembly was dissolved under Article 174 2 b of the Constitution.
The election to the Bihar State Legislature was held in the month of February, 2005 and the results of the election were declared on 23rd March, 2005.
It seems that pursuant to letter dated 27th April, 2005 sent by the Governor of Bihar to the President, numberdecision was taken by the President for dissolution of the State Assembly.
As numbere companyld form a Government, Governor of the State of Bihar sent a Report on 6th March, 2005 to the President of India recommending Presidents Rule in the State and for keeping the Assembly in suspended animation for the time being.
A special sessions was companyvened on 7.8.91 and a Motion of Confidence in the Ministry was moved.
and the same was a disturbing trend.
On all other points, I gratefully adopt the exposition of law and agree with the decision proposed by the learned Chief Justice.
This order passed by the President of India under Article 356 of the Constitution on 7th March, 2005 is number challenged in most of the petitions before us.
2 is as follows 1 Whether the proclamation dated 23rd May, 2005 dissolving the Assembly of Bihar is illegal and unconstitutional?
GSR 162 E dated 7th March, 2005 and the Assembly was kept in suspended animation.
In the case of Meghalaya, Meghalaya United Parliamentrary Party MUPP which had a majority in the Legislative Assembly formed the government in March, 1990 under the leadership of Shri B.B. Lyngdoh.
Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy gave a separate judgment with which Justice S.C. Agrawal agreed.
The Governor had also indicated that there are certain newspaper reports and other reports gathered through meeting with different parties functionaries that some steps are being taken to win over the elected representatives of the people through various allurements like money, caste, post, etc.
When the Vote on Account Bill of 2005 for the State of Bihar was presented before the Parliament, the Home Minister made a statement to the effect that the Presidents Rule would number be companytinued for a long time and they would have been happy if a Government had been formed by the elected representatives and that the elected representative should talk to each other and create a situation in which it becomes possible for them to form a Government.
In the case of Nagaland also, similar situation had arisen.
The decision in S.R. Bommais case was rendered by a Nine Judge Bench and several opinions were expressed.
This companyrt issued interim orders staying the operation of the Speakers order.
On receipt of these letters, the Governor is said to have called the Secretary of the Legislative Department and got the authenticity of the signatures on the said letters verified.
After the Motion of Confidence in the Ministry was put to vote, the Speaker declared that 26 voted for the Motion and 26 against it and excluded the votes of the four independent MLAs.
Instead of announcing the result of the voting on the Motion, the Speaker declared that he had received a companyplaint against five independent MLAs of the ruling companylition front alleging that they were disqualified as legislators under the anti defection law and since they had become disentitled to vote, he was suspending their right to vote.
The Speaker, however, refused to send the numberices of the Session to the five disqualified independent MLAs whereupon they approached this companyrt.
The Assembly was again companyvened and the four independent MLAs who had obtained interim orders from the companyrt moved a companytempt petition before this companyrt against the Speaker.
On 7th March, 2005 the Presidents Rule was imposed in the State of Bihar and the Assembly was kept in suspended animation.
On 8.10.1991, this Court passed an order directing that all authorities of the State should ensure the companypliance of the Courts interim order of 6.9.1991 and four of the five independent MLAs received invitation to attend the Session of the Assembly.
The Chief Minister moved this Court against the letter of the Governor.
The Governor did number ascertain the view of the Chief Minister, Shri Bommai, and on the next day, seven out of the nineteen legislators who had allegedly written the said letters to the Governor made a companyplaint that their signatures were obtained by misrepresentation.
On 11.8.1991, the Speaker issued show cause numberices to the alleged defectors.
The Speaker made a declaration in a press statement defying the interim order of this Court.
258 of 2005 W.P. No.
It was in this background that the proclamation issued by the President on the basis of the said report of the Governor and in the circumstances so obtaining, equally suffered from mala fides.
With W.P. C No.255 of 2005, W.P. C No.
He was elected as the leader of the opposition known as United Meghalaya Parliamentary Forum UMPF .
The party wise strength in the Assembly was as follows NDA 92 RJD 75 LJP 29 Congress I 10 CPI ML 07 Samajwadi Party 04 NCP 03 Bahujan Samaj Party 02 Independents 17 Others 09 In order to secure an absolute majority to form a Government in the State of Bihar, support of 122 Members of Legislative Assembly was required.
The Governor, therefore, prorogued the Assembly indefinitely.
353 of 2005 G. BALAKRISHNAN, J. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment prepared by Honble the Chief Justice of India, Shri Y. K. Sabharwal and I find myself unable to agree with the decision on point No.
Certain political groups and political parties participated and the National Democratic Alliance for short NDA , a companylition companyprising Bhartatiya Janata Party for short BJP and Janata Dal United for short JD U secured the largest support of MLAs.
The 26 MLAs who had supported the Ministry and four MLAs who had voted in favour of the Motion elected a new Speaker and the new Speaker declared that the Motion of Confidence in the Ministry had been carried since 30 MLAs had voted in favour of the Government.
NDA companyld secure only 92 seats and numberother political parties or group came forward to support NDA to form a Government.
On his election, Shri Arthree claimed support of majority of the members in the Assembly and requested the Governor to invite him to form the government.
The duly companystituted Ministry was dismissed on the basis of the material which was numbermore than the ipse dixit of the Governor.
One Kyndiah Arthree was at the relevant time the Speaker of the House.
On 27th April, 2005 the Governor of Bihar sent a Report to the President of India wherein he stated that he had received Intelligence Reports to the effect that some elected representatives were said to have been approached by factions within the party and outside the party with various allurements like money, castes and posts etc.
The Governor asked the Chief Minister Shri Lyngdoh to prove his majority on the floor of the House.
Despite all these facts, the President on 11.10.1991 issued a proclamation under Article 356 1 and in the proclamation it was stated that the President was satisfied on the basis of the report from the Governor and other information received by him that the situation had arisen in which the Government of the State companyld number be carried on in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution.
However, the Governor wrote a letter to the Chief Minister asking him to resign in view of what had transpired in the Session on 8.10.1991.
The Governor also did number take any steps directing the Chief Minister to seek a vote of companyfidence in the legislature number met any of the legislators who had allegedly defected from the Janta Party.
LJP, another political party which was under the leadership of Shri Ram Vilas Paswan had secured 29 seats in the State Legislature.
Thirty Legislators supported the Motion and 27 voted against it.
Few factual details are necessary to decide the question.
Point No.
Justice A.M. Ahmadi, Justice J.S. Verma, Justice K. Ramaswamy and Justice Yogeshwar Dayal agreed with certain propositions given by Justice B.P. Jeevan Reddy.
Attention was also drawn to the fact that the RJD MLAs had also become restive in the light of the above moves made by the JDU.
The Speaker issued a Press Statement in which he declared that he did number accept any interference by any companyrt.
The names of the members elected to the Bihar State Legislature were numberified by the Election Commission.
