CURRENT AFFAIRS | MAY 6, 2026
CLAT GK + CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
West Bengal Assembly Elections 2026 have thrown up a dramatic constitutional question. BJP won a majority in the state assembly, defeating the Trinamool Congress (TMC). TMC supremo and outgoing Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee lost her own constituency of Bhawanipore to BJP’s Suvendu Adhikari by 15,108 votes. Yet Mamata declared: “I am not defeated. I will not resign. I will strengthen the INDIA bloc.”
This situation — where a Chief Minister has (a) lost her own seat and (b) whose party has lost the assembly majority — raises a vital constitutional question that is a recurring favourite in CLAT comprehension and legal reasoning passages.
Constitutional Framework: Two Separate Questions
The situation involves two legally distinct questions under the Constitution:
Question 1: Can a CM remain in office if she is not a member of the Legislature?
Article 164(4) answers this: “A Minister who for any period of six consecutive months is not a member of the Legislature of the State shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister.”
This means a defeated CM legally has 6 months to get re-elected (via a by-election) to continue in office. The 6-month provision was specifically designed for situations like this.
Question 2: Must a CM resign if her party loses the assembly majority?
This is the more critical question. Article 164(2) states: “The Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly of the State.”
This collective responsibility to the House means that if the party loses the floor majority, the constitutional convention demands the CM resign and allow the majority party to form government. This is not explicitly stated in the text — it is a constitutional convention borrowed from the Westminster (UK) parliamentary model.
Article 163 provides that the Governor shall act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers except where the Governor has discretion. One such discretionary power arises when the CM loses majority — the Governor may then invite the majority party leader to form government.
Key Judgments: What the Courts Have Said
1. SR Bommai v Union of India (1994)
The most important case on this issue. A 9-judge Constitution Bench held:
- The floor of the Assembly is the only constitutional method to determine majority.
- A Governor cannot dismiss a government on his own satisfaction; a floor test must precede any such action.
- Article 356 (President’s Rule) is a last resort and cannot be imposed without objective material showing failure of constitutional machinery.
- Courts can review the Governor’s satisfaction in recommending President’s Rule.
2. Nabam Rebia v Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh (2016)
A 5-judge bench held that the Governor can summon the Assembly session to conduct a floor test even against the Chief Minister’s advice when there is a credible challenge to the CM’s majority. The Governor’s discretionary power under Article 163 applies here.
3. Rameshwar Prasad v Union of India (Jharkhand, 2006)
The Supreme Court held that the Governor’s report recommending President’s Rule must be based on objective material. A purely partisan or politically motivated report can be judicially reviewed.
CLAT Angle: The Constitutional Dilemma
Here is how a CLAT passage might frame this:
Scenario A — Mamata’s right to stay (6-month window): If TMC somehow forms a coalition with others and still commands majority, Mamata can legally remain CM for 6 months without being a member (Art. 164(4)) and contest a by-election.
Scenario B — Constitutional convention demands resignation: If BJP commands clear majority, the convention requires Mamata to resign. The Governor may invite BJP’s Suvendu Adhikari to form government. If Mamata refuses, the Governor can summon the Assembly for a floor test (Nabam Rebia precedent).
Scenario C — Caretaker government: Between the election results and formation of new government, the outgoing CM continues as “caretaker” — can handle only routine administration; cannot take major policy decisions (sale of government land, key appointments, etc.).
Scenario D — Article 356 (last resort): If no government can be formed and constitutional machinery fails, the Governor may recommend President’s Rule. But after SR Bommai, a floor test must be attempted first.
Key Facts at a Glance
| Article 163 | CoM to aid and advise Governor; Governor has discretion in certain matters |
| Article 164(1) | CM appointed by Governor; other ministers on CM’s advice |
| Article 164(2) | CoM collectively responsible to Legislative Assembly |
| Article 164(4) | Non-member CM/Minister has 6 months to get elected |
| Article 356 | President’s Rule — failure of constitutional machinery |
| SR Bommai (1994) | Floor test is the ONLY way to test majority |
| Nabam Rebia (2016) | Governor can summon assembly for floor test against CM’s advice |
Memory Mnemonic: CLAT MAMA
C — Constitutional convention: Majority lost = resign
L — Legislature: Art. 164(2) — CoM responsible to Assembly
A — Article 164(4): 6-month window to get elected
T — Test: Floor test is the ONLY constitutional method (SR Bommai)
M — Member status: Losing seat ≠ losing office (6-month rule)
A — Article 356: President’s Rule = LAST resort, AFTER floor test
M — Majority lost: Governor’s discretion kicks in (Art. 163)
A — Arbitration: Nabam Rebia — Governor CAN summon assembly
Practice Quiz: Governor’s Powers, Floor Test & Article 164
Practice Quiz — 10 CLAT-Style Questions
Click an option to reveal the answer and explanation.
