Context:

• The Supreme Court had ordered the floor test in Maharashtra for the newly formed government. 
• In its order, it referred to cases in the past where it had directed the holding of a floor test to establish whether the political party/alliance that staked a claim for government formation had the requisite majority. Here is a recap of these cases from various states and the circumstances that led to the Supreme Court court’s intervention.

Floor test:

• A floor test can be explained as a motion initiated by the government in position seeking to know if it enjoys the confidence of the legislature. 
• As part of this procedure, the chief minister appointed by the governor will be asked to prove majority on the Legislative Assembly’s floor.

How is a floor test conducted?

• When a floor test is called for in the assembly of a state, the chief minister will move a vote of confidence and prove that he has the majority support. If the floor test fails, the chief minister will have to resign. 
• The whole idea of a floor test is incorporated in the constitution of India to ensure transparency in the constitutional process.

How is the voting done?

These are the modes by which voting can be conducted:

1. Voice vote: In a voice vote, the legislators respond orally.
2. Division vote: In case of a division vote, voting is done using electronic gadgets, slips or in a ballot box.
3. Ballot vote: Ballot box is usually a secret vote – just like how people vote during state or parliamentary elections. 

If there is a tie:

• Following the vote, the person who has the majority will be allowed to form the government. In case there is a tie, the speaker can cast his vote

Pro-tem speaker :

• The pro-tem speaker’s role is crucial in conducting a floor test. Conventionally, the longest serving House member is nominated as pro tem speaker, whose role is limited to administering oath to new MLAs and conducting the election of the full-time speaker.

S R Bommai v Union of India (1994)

• The concept of floor test was first established by the Supreme Court in 1994 in the landmark case of S R Bommai.
•  In this case, it was alleged that the Janata Party government led by Bommai did not enjoy a majority in the Karnataka legislature. 
• The court held that, wherever a doubt arises whether the Council of Ministers has lost the confidence of the House, the only way of testing it is on the floor of the House.

Jagdambika Pal v Union of India (1999)

• The events that led to this case coming before the Supreme Court were less than pleasant. In 1996, the Uttar Pradesh Assembly elections resulted in none of the contesting parties winning a clear majority. 
• The Supreme Court then ordered a composite floor test to determine who enjoyed a majority in the UP Assembly. The court also gave specific instructions about how the test should be conducted.

Union of India v Harish Chandra Singh Rawat (2016)

• The case in Uttarakhand was a little different. Here the controversy regarding a majority did not occur after the elections to the state legislature. The Congress government led by Harish Rawat had been in power since 2012. 
• It was towards the end of its tenure in 2016, that controversy erupted on the floor of the House. A few rebel MLAs from the Congress party alleged that an appropriation Bill was passed without the government enjoying a majority in the legislature. Thereafter, President’s Rule was imposed in the State. 
• In response, Rawat approached the Supreme Court, which ordered an immediate floor test, after suspending President’s Rule for two hours. A
• gain the Supreme Court ordered video recordings of the floor test proceedings and also asked that the result of the floor test be brought before it.

Chandrakant Kavlekar v Union of India (2017)

• This case from Goa was a result of the Governor inviting Manohar Parrikar of the BJP to form the government in the State. 
• The BJP had won 13 of the 40 seats in the Goa legislature and had claimed the support of smaller parties for forming the government. 
• The Supreme Court, while ordering a floor test in this case, held, “The holding of the floor test would remove all possible ambiguities, and would result in giving the democratic process the required credibility.”