LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Shivraj Singh Chouhan & Ors. v. Speaker, Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly & Ors.

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2020 INSC 335Decided 13 Apr 2020
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 439 of 2020
Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud · Justice Hemant Gupta

Background

In March 2020, political turmoil in the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly arose after 22 MLAs tendered resignations, prompting the Governor to repeatedly direct the Chief Minister to prove his majority through a floor test. Two writ petitions under Article 32 were filed: one by ten MLAs seeking a direction to compel an immediate floor test as per the Governor's directions, and another by the Madhya Pradesh Congress Legislature Party seeking relief alleging that the resigning MLAs were being illegally confined by the Union, the State of Karnataka, and the BJP, and asking that any trust vote be held only in the presence of all elected members.

Decision Breakdown

The Court had already issued interim operative directions on 19 March 2020 directing that the Assembly session be reconvened on 20 March 2020 for a single-agenda floor test (confidence in the Chief Minister) by show of hands, videographed and live-telecast where possible, to be concluded by 5 pm, with police authorities in both Madhya Pradesh and Karnataka ensuring the sixteen MLAs in question faced no restraint on their liberty to attend if they chose to. This judgment supplies the detailed reasoning for and affirms those directions as final, relying on the nine-Judge Bench ruling in S.R. Bommai and the Constitution Bench ruling in Nabam Rebia. It rejected the Congress party's additional pleas, such as a demand that no trust vote occur without all 230 MLAs present or until by-elections were held for the 22 vacant seats, as misconceived, holding that whether an individual member attends the House is that member's own choice and responsibility, not something the Court can mandate. Writ Petition No. 439/2020 was disposed of in terms of the earlier directions, and Writ Petition No. 449/2020 (the Congress party's petition) was dismissed.

Lesson Learnt

When the numerical strength of a government in a legislature is genuinely in doubt, a floor test is the constitutionally mandated way to resolve it swiftly; individual legislators cannot be compelled to attend a trust vote, nor can a vote be stalled by demanding that absent or resigned members first be produced or their seats first be refilled.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case