In its subsequent judgment in the Bihar assembly dissolution case, the Supreme Court ruled that minority governments are not unknown. It further observed as follows: “It is also not unknown that despite various differences of perception, the party, group or MLAs may still not opt to take a step which may lead to the fall of the government for various reasons, including their being not prepared to face elections. These and many other imponderables can result in MLAs belonging to even different political parties to come together. It does not necessarily lead to assumption of allurement and horse-trading” (emphasis supplied).

The Supreme Court further categorically ruled that “if a political party with the support of other political party or other MLAs satisfies the governor about its majority to form a stable government, the governor cannot refuse formation of the government because of his subjective assessment that the majority was cobbled by illegal and unethical means of horse-trading and allurements. No such power has been vested with the governor. Such a power would be against the democratic principles of majority rule. The governor is not an autocratic political ombudsman. If such a power is vested in the governor and/or the president, the consequences can be horrendous.”

These principles enunciated by the Supreme Court are clearly overlooked by spokespersons of certain political parties who harp on horse-trading and cobbling of majority by unethical means. Obviously these statements proceed upon the legal misconception of the factors to be taken into account by the governor in formation of a government.

... contd.