Applications for the LAMP Fellowship 2025-26 will open soon. Sign up here to be notified when the dates are announced.
As per news reports, the union government has filed a Presidential Reference in relation to the 2G judgment. In this judgment the Supreme Court had cancelled 122 2G licences granting access to spectrum and had ordered their re-allocation by means of an auction. It also held that use of first cum first serve policy (FCFS) to allocate natural resources was unconstitutional. It had held that natural resources should be allocated through auctions. As per the news report, the Presidential Reference seeks clarity on whether the Supreme Court could interfere with policy decisions. This issue has been discussed in a number of cases. For instance, the Supreme Court in Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain[1] held that Courts cannot act as an appellate authority to examine the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy. It further held that Courts cannot act as advisors to the executive on policy matters which the executive is entitled to formulate. It stated that the Court could review whether the policy violates fundamental rights, or is opposed to a Constitutional or any statutory provision, or is manifestly arbitrary. It further stated that legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review. In Suresh Seth vs. Commissioner, Indore Municipal Corporation[2] a three judge bench of the Court observed that, “this Court cannot issue any direction to the Legislature to make any particular kind of enactment. Under our constitutional scheme Parliament and Legislative Assemblies exercise sovereign power or authority to enact laws and no outside power or authority can issue a direction to enact a particular piece of legislation.” In the present case it may be argued that whereas the Court was empowered to declare a policy such as FCFS as unconstitutional, it did not have the jurisdiction to direct auctioning of spectrum and other natural resources. The Presidential Reference may conclusively determine the Court’s jurisdiction in this regard. However, it has been urged by a few experts that this Presidential Reference amounts to an appeal against the decision of the Court. They have argued that this could be done only through a Review Petition (which has already been admitted by the Court). The advisory jurisdiction of the Court invoked through Presidential References, is governed by Article 143 of the Constitution. Under Article 143 of the Constitution of India, the President is empowered to refer to the Supreme Court any matter of law or fact. The opinion of the Court may be sought in relation to issues that have arisen or are likely to arise. A Presidential Reference may be made in matters that are of public importance and where it is expedient to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court. The Court may refuse to answer all or any of the queries raised in the Reference. A Presidential Reference thus requires that the opinion of the Court on the issue should not have been already obtained or decided by the Court. In the Gujarat Election Case[3] the Supreme Court took note of Presidential References that were appellate in nature. Thus, a Presidential Reference cannot be adopted as a means to review or appeal the judgment of the Supreme Court. Against judgments of the Court the mechanisms of review is the only option. This position was also argued by Senior Advocate Fali S. Nariman in the Cauvery Water Case[4], where the Court refused to give an opinion. Whether the Court had the authority to determine a policy, such as FCFS, as unconstitutional is not disputed. However, there are conflicting judgments on the extent to which a Court can interfere with the executive domain. It would be interesting to see whether the Court would give its opinion on this issue. In the event it does, it may bring higher level of clarity to the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.
[1] AIR 2007 SC 1640
[2] AIR2006SC767
[3] (2002) 8 SCC 237
[4] (1993) Supp 1 SCC 96(II)
Discussion on the first no-confidence motion of the 17th Lok Sabha began today. No-confidence motions and confidence motions are trust votes, used to test or demonstrate the support of Lok Sabha for the government in power. Article 75(3) of the Constitution states that the government is collectively responsible to Lok Sabha. This means that the government must always enjoy the support of a majority of the members of Lok Sabha. Trust votes are used to examine this support. The government resigns if a majority of members support a no-confidence motion, or reject a confidence motion.
So far, 28 no-confidence motions (including the one being discussed today) and 11 confidence motions have been discussed. Over the years, the number of such motions has reduced. The mid-1960s and mid-1970s saw more no-confidence motions, whereas the 1990s saw more confidence motions.
Figure 1: Trust votes in Parliament
Note: *Term shorter than 5 years; **6-year term.
Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.
The no-confidence motion being discussed today was moved on July 26, 2023. A motion of no-confidence is moved with the support of at least 50 members. The Speaker has the discretion to allot time for discussion of the motion. The Rules of Procedure state that the motion must be discussed within 10 days of being introduced. This year, the no-confidence motion was discussed 13 calendar days after introduction. Since the introduction of the no-confidence motion on July 26, 12 Bills have been introduced and 18 Bills have been passed by Lok Sabha. In the past, on four occasions, the discussion on no-confidence motions began seven days after their introduction. On these occasions, Bills and other important issues were debated before the discussion on the no-confidence motion began.
Figure 2: Members rise in support of the motion of no-confidence in Lok Sabha
Source: Sansad TV, Lok Sabha, July 26, 2023; PRS.
Figure 3: Number of days from introduction to discussion on no-confidence motions
Note: Number of days implies calendar days.
Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.
On average, no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been discussed for 13 hours over three days. Discussions have lasted longer than 20 hours on four instances, most recently in 2003. Today’s no-confidence motion was allotted 12 hours discussion time by the Business Advisory Committee.
Following the discussion, the motion is put to vote. 26 out of 27 no-confidence motions (excluding the one being discussed today) have been voted upon and rejected. This means that no government has ever had to resign following a vote of no-confidence. On one occasion, in 1979, the discussion on a no-confidence motion against the Morarji Desai government remained inconclusive. He resigned before the motion was put to vote. 50% of all no-confidence motions (14 out of 28) were discussed between 1965 and 1975. Of these, 12 were against governments headed by Indira Gandhi.
Figure 4: Duration of discussion on no-confidence motions
Note: This graph excludes the no confidence motion moved on July 26, 2023.
Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.
In comparison, confidence motions have a more varied history. The first motion, brought in 1979 to demonstrate confidence in Charan Singh’s government, was not discussed at all. The Prime Minister resigned before the discussion could take place. Since then, 11 confidence motions have been discussed in Lok Sabha, with nine occurring in the 1990s. During this period, several coalition governments were formed, and Prime Ministers sought to prove their majority through confidence motions. These motions have been discussed, on average, for 12 hours over two days.
Figure 5: Duration of discussion of confidence motions
Source: Statistical Handbook 2021, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs; PRS.
Of the 11 confidence motions discussed in Lok Sabha, seven were accepted. On three instances, governments had to resign as they could not prove that they had the support of the majority. On one instance in 1996, the motion was not put to vote. Following an eleven-hour discussion on this confidence motion, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee announced his intention to resign on the floor of the House. He resigned 16 days into his term.
Vajpayee became Prime Minister again in 1999, and faced another confidence motion. This time, it was put to vote. The motion was defeated by a margin of one vote. This has been the closest result on a trust vote in the history of Lok Sabha. The next closest result was when a motion of no-confidence against P V Narasimha Rao’s government was defeated by 14 votes in 1993. In most cases, results have been in favour of the government by a large margin.
