Soon after the Lok Sabha election results came out on June 4, showing that the BJP had failed to win a majority of seats, speculation was rife about Janata Dal (United) chief Nitish Kumar and Telugu Desam Party supremo N. Chandrababu Naidu turning to the Opposition INDIA bloc. Both parties have since conveyed firm support to the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance, which is now set to form the next Union government.
However, a January 2006 judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court would cover the situation had the speculation turned into reality. The judgment in Rameshwar Prasad versus Union of India touched on the issue of post-poll alliances. The judgment held that post-poll alliances were entirely within the political realm, insisting that courts or constitutional authorities had hardly a role to play in such a situation.
“There are no judicial manageable standards and, therefore, the court must keep its hands off from examining these matters in its power of judicial review,” the judgment advised.
Past judgment
Constitutional authorities cannot deny a claim of a majority to form the government on the mere presumption that a post-poll alliance was the product of some illegality, allurement, or bribe, the Supreme Court had held.
“If, after polls, two or more parties come together, it may be difficult to deny their claim of majority on the stated ground of such illegality. These are the aspects better left to be determined by the political parties which, of course, must set healthy and ethical standards for themselves. But in any case, the ultimate judgment has to be left to the electorate and the legislature composed also of Members of the Opposition,” the court had concluded.
The judgment had said that it was “one thing to come to the conclusion that the majority staking claim to form the government would not be able to provide stable government… but it is altogether a different thing to say that they have garnered majority by illegal means and, therefore, their claim to form the government cannot be accepted”.
No proof of horse-trading
“Without highly cogent material, it would be wholly irrational for constitutional authority to deny the claim made by a majority to form the government only on the ground that the majority has been obtained by offering allurements and bribe which deals have taken place in the cover of darkness,” the judgment noted.
Rameshwar Prasad reasoned that there cannot be a presumption of allurement or horse-trading just because Members had expressed a view opposite to the public posture of their leader and had decided to support the formation of the government by the leader of another political party.
The judgment indicated that this same logic would apply to political alliances too, saying that many imponderables may result in legislators belonging to different political parties coming together.
In his separate opinion in the Rameshwar Prasad judgment, however, Justice Arijit Pasayat (retired) warned that a candidate should not become a “purchasable commodity” after elections. Such a turn of events would not only betray the electorate, but also pollute the pure stream of democracy, the judge noted.
