In News:

• In a major setback for Maharashtra's Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government, the Supreme Court of India (SC) recently protected rebel Shiv Sena MLAs from disqualification proceedings until July 12.
• The apex court also denied the Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress coalition's request to halt the rebels from demanding a floor test in the assembly.

What’s in today’s article:

• About the SC verdict
• What is a floor test?
• Disqualification of MPs/MLAs under the anti-defection law (10th Schedule)

About the SC verdict:

• Background:
  • The political crisis in Maharashtra erupted when some of the legislators (MLAs) of Shiv Sena - the largest political party in the MVA coalition ruling the state, have aligned themselves with the party’s rebel leader.
  • Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly has served disqualification notices to 16 of the rebel camp MLAs, under the 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
  • This political battle reached the SC in response to the Deputy Speaker's disqualification notice.
• The petitioner’s key arguments before the SC:
  • Deputy Speaker has acted in a biased manner:
    • Ordinarily, a member who has been elected as Speaker or Deputy Speaker resigns from the membership of his/her political party, but that has not happened in this case.
      • The post of the Assembly speaker fell vacant after Nana Patole of the Congress resigned from the post and became president of the Maharashtra Congress.
    • Since the Deputy Speaker’s party (NCP) is supporting the “minority faction” of the Shiv Sena, his actions are biased.
  • The disqualification notice in violation of the SC ruling:
    • The notice to move a resolution for removal of Deputy Speaker, under Article 179 (c) of the Indian Constitution (removal of Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Assembly), was submitted on June 21.
    • In the Nabam Rebia case (2016), the apex court had ruled that it would be “constitutionally impermissible” for a Speaker to adjudicate upon disqualification petitions under the 10th Schedule, while a motion of resolution for his/her own removal from the office is pending.
    • The petitioner has claimed that the petition for disqualification of 16 MLAs was submitted to the Deputy Speaker after the notice for moving a resolution for his own removal was given.
• The SC’s verdict:
  • The SC order extended till July 12, the time granted by the Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly to rebel MLAs to reply to disqualification notices.
  • This paves the way for a floor test to prove the confidence of the Assembly.
    • The SC allows Maharashtra state to knock on its doors if the 'rebel' MLAs seek a no-confidence motion in order to verify the MVA's numbers in the legislature.
    • This means, the Maharashtra governor can legally promulgate a Session of the House and direct a floor test be held. 

What is a floor test?

• A floor test is done to ensure whether the government in position enjoys the support of the majority legislature.
• When a single party secures the majority of the seats in the house, the Governor appoints the leader of the party as the Chief Minister (CM).
• In case the majority is questioned, the leader of the party (CM) which claims majority has to move a vote of confidence and prove majority among those present and voting.
  • In case more than one person is claiming to form the government and the majority is not clear, the Governor may call for a special session to see who has the majority.
  • In case of a tie, the Speaker casts his vote.
• The CM has to resign if they fail to prove the majority in the house.
• Hence, a floor test is a Constitutional mechanism (Article 164) under which a CM appointed by the Governor can be asked to prove majority on the floor of the Legislative Assembly of the state.
• When the House is in session, the Speaker has the authority to call a floor test. When the Assembly is not in session, the Governor may call for a floor test under Article 163.
• The SC, in the SR Bommai Case (1994), laid down certain guidelines so as to prevent the misuse of Article 356 of the Indian Constitution.
  • One such guideline is - The majority enjoyed by the Council of Ministers shall be tested on the floor of the House. 

Disqualification of MPs/MLAs under the anti-defection law (10th Schedule):

• About the anti-defection law:
  • It punishes individual MPs/MLAs for leaving one party for another.
  • It allows a group of MP/MLAs to join (i.e., merge with) another political party without inviting the penalty for defection.
  • The Parliament of India added it to the Constitution as the Tenth Schedule in 1985.
  • Its purpose was to bring stability to governments by discouraging legislators from changing parties.
• What constitutes defection?
  • The law covers three kinds of scenarios.
    • When legislators elected on the ticket of one political party “voluntarily give up” membership of that party or vote in the legislature against the party’s wishes.
    • When an MP/MLA who has been elected as an independent join a party later.
    • The third scenario relates to nominated legislators. They can join a political party within six months of being appointed to the House and not after such time.
  • Violation of the law in any of these scenarios can lead to a legislator being penalised for defection.
• The deciding authority:
  • The Presiding Officers of the Legislature (Speaker, Chairman) are the deciding authorities in such cases.
  • The SC has held that legislators can challenge their decisions before the higher judiciary.
• Time taken for deciding cases of defection:
  • The law does not provide a time-frame within which the presiding officer has to decide a defection case.
  • Last year, the SC dismissed a minister in Manipur when the Speaker did not decide the defection petition against him even after three years.
    • The court held that ideally, Speakers should take a decision on a defection petition within three months.