Consider the following statements: 1. If the election of a State Le

Consider the following statements:

  • 1. If the election of a State Legislature Party candidate to the Council of States is declared void, a re-election has to be held.
  • 2. An election petition challenging the election of a candidate is presented to the Election Commission of India.
  • 3. The Governor of a State can dissolve the State Legislative Assembly without the advice of the Council of Ministers in certain circumstances.

Which of the statements given above are correct?

1 and 2 only
1 and 3 only
2 and 3 only
1, 2 and 3
This question was previously asked in
UPSC CAPF – 2010
Statements 1 and 3 are correct.
– Statement 1: If the election of a candidate to the Council of States is declared void by a court, the seat becomes vacant, and a fresh election (re-election) must be held to fill that vacancy. This is a standard consequence of an election being declared void.
– Statement 2: An election petition challenging the election of a candidate to Parliament or a State Legislature is presented to the High Court of the concerned state, not the Election Commission of India. The High Court has the original jurisdiction for such petitions, and appeals lie with the Supreme Court.
– Statement 3: While the Governor normally acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister, the Constitution provides for certain limited circumstances where the Governor may exercise discretion. For instance, in situations like a hung assembly where no party has a clear majority, or when a government has lost the confidence of the house but refuses to resign and advises dissolution, the Governor may have to take a decision regarding dissolving the assembly or inviting another party to form a government, potentially without or against the advice of the incumbent Council of Ministers. Though controversial and subject to judicial review, the possibility of the Governor dissolving the assembly without advice in these rare “certain circumstances” is acknowledged in constitutional discourse.
– The Supreme Court judgment in the S.R. Bommai case (1994) significantly curtailed the discretionary powers of the Governor and emphasized that the Governor’s satisfaction must be based on objective material, not personal subjective assessment.
– Despite limitations, the Governor’s role in situations of political instability, such as a hung assembly or a no-confidence motion, involves some degree of discretionary decision-making regarding ministry formation or dissolution, though the preference is for decisions to be tested on the floor of the House.