UID-38 (R)

706.6 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Before
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT

IN THE MATTER OF:

Anirudh Deshmukh and Ors.............................(Petitioner)

V.

State of Aryavarta…................................(Respondent)

~MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT ~

 MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................................................3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.....................................................................................................4

STATEMENT OF FACTS.....................................................................................................................5

ISSUE RAISED......................................................................................................................................6

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...........................................................................................................7

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................................8
PRAYER...............................................................................................................................................11

2
 MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

1. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1

2. Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Speaker, (2020) 13 SCC 122

3. Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India, (2005) 7 SCC 625

4. Union of India v. Harish Chandra Rawat, (2016) SCC OnLine SC 443

STATUTE

 Representation of People’s Act, 1951

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

 Constitution of India 1950, Article 32

3
 MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Respondent submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 32
of the Constitution as invoked by the petitioners.

Article 32 of the Constitution reads as follows -

Article 32. Remedies for enforcement of rights conferred by this Part:

(1) The right to move the SC by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the
rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed.

(2) The SC shall have power to issue directions or orders or writs, including writs in
the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto and certiorari,
whichever may be appropriate, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by
this Part.

(3) Without prejudice to the powers conferred on the SC by clause (1) and (2),
Parliament may by law empower any other court to exercise within the local limits of
its jurisdiction all or any of the powers exercisable by the SC under clause (2).

(4) The right guaranteed by this article shall not be suspended except as otherwise
provided for by this Constitution.

4
 MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Elections to the legislative assembly of Aryavarta were held in October 2023, resulting in the
formation of a coalition government led by the Pragati Party. The coalition, under the
leadership of Mr. Anirudh Deshmukh as Chief Minister, secured a majority with the support of
170 Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs). The government enjoyed stability and
functioned effectively, upholding the democratic mandate of the people of Aryavarta.

In June 2024, internal dissent within the Pragati Party culminated in a split, leading to the
emergence of two factions. The first, the Deshmukh Faction, remained loyal to the Chief
Minister, Mr. Deshmukh, while the second, the Rao Faction, was led by Mr. Rajendra Rao. The
Rao Faction garnered the support of 39 MLAs, who subsequently allied with opposition parties
to form a new coalition under the banner of the United Democratic Front (UDF). The UDF
claimed to have the support of 150 MLAs in the 300-member assembly, thereby asserting their
majority.

On receiving a representation from the UDF regarding their majority, the Governor of
Aryavarta directed Mr. Deshmukh to prove his majority on the floor of the House. The
Governor’s directive was perceived as an overreach, as Mr. Deshmukh still commanded the
nominal support of his party and had not lost the confidence of the House through a formal test.
Faced with political pressure and allegations of bias in the Governor’s actions, Mr. Deshmukh
chose to resign as Chief Minister on June 14, 2024, without conducting a floor test.

Following Mr. Deshmukh’s resignation, the Governor invited Mr. Rao, leader of the Rao
Faction, to form the government on June 15, 2024, raising serious constitutional questions. The
new government subsequently secured the confidence of the assembly, solidifying its position.
The Petitioners, however, challenged the Governor’s directive to Mr. Deshmukh to prove his
majority and the invitation to Mr. Rao, arguing that these actions violated constitutional
principles, parliamentary democracy, and established judicial precedents emphasizing the
Governor’s impartiality. They alleged that the Governor’s actions undermined constitutional
morality, disrupted the democratic process, and weakened accountability mechanisms central to
the parliamentary system.

5
 MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT

ISSUE RAISED

ISSUE V

WHETHER THE RESIGNATION OF THE CHIEF MINISTER UNDER

PRESSURE FROM THE GOVERNOR AND THE SUBSEQUENT
FORMATION OF THE NEW GOVERNMENT UNDERMINED
CONSTITUTIONAL MORALITY AND PARLIAMENTARY
DEMOCRACY.

6
 MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

The Governor’s actions were constitutionally valid and fell within the scope of discretionary
powers. Under Articles 163, 164 and 174 of the Constitution, the Governor is vested with
discretionary authority to address disputes regarding legislative majorities and ensure stable
governance. In directing a floor test and subsequently inviting Mr. Rao to form the government,
the Governor adhered to established constitutional processes aimed at resolving majority
claims. Judicial precedents, such as Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Speaker (2020), affirm the
necessity of conducting floor tests in such situations, and the Governor’s actions were
consistent with this principle of parliamentary democracy.

The resignation of Mr. Deshmukh was both voluntary and procedurally valid. His refusal to
undertake a floor test, as directed by the Governor, signified his acknowledgment of the
inability to prove majority support in the legislature. Consequently, his resignation was in line
with procedural norms and democratic conventions. This Court, in Union of India v. Harish
Chandra Rawat (2016), underscored the obligation of a Chief Minister to demonstrate majority
support when required, a responsibility that Mr. Deshmukh failed to fulfill.

The formation of the Rao-led government upheld the principles of parliamentary democracy,
which mandate majority rule. With the support of 150 MLAs, the Rao-led government satisfied
the constitutional requirement of majority support, ensuring continuity in governance. This
alignment with democratic principles finds affirmation in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
(1994), where the Hon’ble Court emphasized the paramount importance of demonstrating
legislative majority.

The Governor’s discretion in the matter was exercised in a non-arbitrary and impartial manner.
The decision to recognize Mr. Rao’s claim was based on credible representations and evidence
of majority support in the assembly, a standard upheld by this Court in Rameshwar Prasad v.
Union of India (2005). Furthermore, as observed in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker (2016),
Governors are expected to act impartially and ensure stability in governance. The Governor’s
actions in the present case reflect adherence to these constitutional expectations and promote
the larger objective of maintaining democratic stability.

7
 MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE GOVERNOR ARE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

AND REMAIN WITHIN THE POWERS GTANTED TO THE POST BY THE
CONSTITUTION.

1. The counsel for the respondent humbly submits before this hon’ble court that the floor test
requested by the Governor was within the power granted to him by the Constitution vide
Article 163. His actions cannot be said to be biased or motivated by other factors such as
favourtism or politics.

A. THE GOVERNOR’S ACTIONS WERE CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID

AND WITHIN THE SCOPE OF DISCRETIONARY POWERS.

2. The Governor’s actions were constitutionally valid and fell within the scope of discretionary
powers as provided under Article 163 of the Constitution. This provision grants the Governor
the authority to act independently in situations where ambiguity arises regarding majority
support in the legislature. The split within the ruling coalition created a situation of political
uncertainty that necessitated the Governor's intervention to prevent a constitutional impasse. By
directing a floor test, the Governor sought to clarify the actual support enjoyed by the
incumbent Chief Minister in the assembly. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Shivraj Singh
Chouhan v. Speaker1, affirmed that a floor test is the most appropriate mechanism to
determine majority support in cases of political instability. In issuing this directive, the
Governor acted within constitutional principles to ensure transparency and resolve the
ambiguity surrounding the legislative majority.

3. The resignation of Mr. Deshmukh as Chief Minister was both voluntary and procedurally
valid. His decision to step down followed his refusal to demonstrate majority support in the
legislature, a fundamental requirement for any head of government. This refusal, despite the
Governor’s explicit directive to undertake a floor test, constituted a de facto acknowledgment
of his loss of confidence in the legislative assembly.

4. Such an acknowledgment undermined the legitimacy of his leadership and necessitated his

1
Shivraj Singh Chouhan v Speaker (2020) 17 SCC 80.
8
 MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT
resignation to uphold democratic norms. In Union of India v. Harish Chandra Rawat 2,
the Supreme Court emphasized that the failure to conduct a floor test erodes the legitimacy of a
government, necessitating corrective actions, including resignation. Mr. Deshmukh’s decision
to resign was therefore consistent with the constitutional and procedural framework governing
such situations.

5. The formation of the Rao-led government upheld the principles of parliamentary democracy.
The new coalition, led by Mr. Rao, garnered the support of 150 MLAs, representing a clear
legislative majority in the 300-member assembly. This numerical strength provided a robust
democratic mandate and ensured continuity in governance at a critical juncture. Parliamentary
democracy mandates that the government derive its legitimacy from majority support in the
legislature, and the Rao-led government satisfied this constitutional requirement.

6. The principle of majority rule, as elaborated in S.R. Bommai v. Union of India 3,

underscores that legislative support is paramount in determining the legitimacy of any
government. By inviting Mr. Rao to form the government, the Governor facilitated the
democratic process and ensured that governance continued without disruption.

7. The Governor’s discretion in the matter was exercised in a non-arbitrary manner, consistent
with constitutional principles and judicial precedents. The decision to invite Mr. Rao to form
the government was based on credible evidence and representations made by the United
Democratic Front, demonstrating the Governor’s impartiality and adherence to the
requirements of the Constitution. The Governor’s reliance on concrete proof of majority
support in the assembly ensured that the actions taken were reasonable and necessary to
maintain constitutional stability.

8. In Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India4, the Supreme Court recognized the

Governor’s responsibility to act decisively in situations requiring the formation of a new
government to prevent a governance vacuum. Similarly, the Governor’s actions in the present
case reflected this responsibility, aimed at upholding democratic values and ensuring stable
governance. The careful exercise of discretion in this case was both constitutionally sound and
essential to maintaining the integrity of the parliamentary system.

2
Union of India v Harish Chandra Rawat (2016) 8 SCC 220.
3
S R Bommai v Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1.
4
Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India (2005) 7 SCC 625.
9
 MEMORANDUM for RESPONDENT

PRAYER

In light of the aforementioned arguments, the Respondents humbly pray that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to:

1. Uphold the actions of the Governor as constitutionally valid and within the scope of
discretionary powers.
2. To declare the resignation of Mr. Deshmukh as voluntary and procedurally valid.
3. And to validate the formation of the Rao-led government as a reflection of the
legislative majority and parliamentary democracy.

Or pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the interest of
justice.
For this Act of kindness, the Respondent as is duty bound shall ever pray.

(Respectfully Submitted)

Counsel on behalf of the Respondents

10