CM Removal and Governor’s Powers: Constitutional Crisis and Floor Test Rules

Recently, Mamata Banerjee refused to resign after electoral defeat, raising constitutional questions on CM removal and Governor’s powers.

Key Background of the Issue

• Post-Election Constitutional Convention: After Assembly elections, the outgoing Chief Minister is expected to resign if the party loses majority, enabling formation of a new government.
• Constitutional Crisis Scenario: Refusal to resign creates a standoff, requiring intervention by the Governor through constitutional mechanisms like floor tests or dismissal.

UPSC Coaching Classes

About Chief Minister 

• The Chief Minister is the real executive head of the state, while the Governor acts as the nominal head under the Constitution.
• Key Constitutional Provisions:
  • Article 163: CM heads the Council to aid and advise the Governor.
  • Article 164: CM is appointed by the Governor; Council is collectively responsible to the Assembly.
  • Article 167: CM communicates decisions to the Governor.
  • Article 172:  State Legislative Assembly has a five-year tenure from its first sitting, unless dissolved earlier.
• Appointment and Removal:
  • The Governor appoints the leader of the majority party/coalition as CM.
  • The CM holds office during the “pleasure of the Governor,” but effectively depends on Assembly majority.
  • Loss of majority leads to resignation or removal after a floor test.
• Role of Governor:
  • Appointment in Case of Majority/Hung Assembly: The Governor appoints the majority leader or exercises discretion in a hung Assembly, requiring proof of majority within a stipulated time.
  • Ensuring Floor Test: The Governor can direct the CM to prove majority on the floor of the House, which is the only valid test of confidence.
  • Dismissal and Constitutional Remedies: If the CM refuses to resign despite losing majority, the Governor may dismiss the government or recommend President’s Rule under Article 356.

Explore UPSC Prarambh Course

Explore UPSC Prarambh Course

Judicial Precedents in CM Cases

• Floor Test Principle: In S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), the Supreme Court held that the majority must be tested on the Assembly floor, not decided by the Governor.
• Limits on Governor’s Discretion: In Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016), the Court ruled that the Governor cannot act arbitrarily or bypass the elected government.
• Eligibility for CM Post: In B.R. Kapur v. State of Tamil Nadu (2001), the Court held that a disqualified person cannot be appointed as Chief Minister.

Click to Know UPSC OnlyIAS Coaching Centres

Conclusion

The Constitution ensures democratic continuity by requiring majority support, limiting Governor’s discretion, and mandating floor tests to resolve political uncertainty.

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

DOWNLOAD PDF