Dissolution of State Government

Sir, In Bihar if Jitan Ram Majhi government fails to prove confidence on floor, government will dissolve. After dissolution what does constitution of India say, re-elections or to give chance to other parties to form a government?

Regarding the question of 'what constitution says in case a government is dissolved' there is nothing else but article 356. Only the SC judgements on the misuse of this article are guiding the governor to ensure testing of the majority on the floor, explore other options etc.

The floor is the proper place to test the majority. If the incumbent fails, the governor may invite, the next largest party or coalition to form the government. If he feels that no stable government could be formed, he may recommend dissolution.

Sir can the governor give the permission to new leader of jdu to prove majority?? I mean if the cm is removed from the party and if he cannot prove majority.

yes he can. in fact with so much abuse of art 356. the courts have told the governor have to test it out on the floor.

When no one has a clear majority, it is upto the governor.

Please note he does not have complete discretion. He is supposed to act in the letter and spirit of the constitution. His actions are subject to judicial review. the SC had struck down Governors decisions in the past

Election commission's role comes only after the house is dissolved. EC will not have any say about government formation or otherwise.

Please correct me if I am wrong- But only if his intentions are proven malafide?

no need to prove malafide intention. decisions can be struck down in the name of not giving the full opportunity for the person who staked claim.

He has to exercise his powers with due diligence.

Not dissolving the Delhi assembly house for the last year - isn't that under Judicial review on the alleged malafide intentions of not letting the person who staked claim (in this case the AAP)? we've heard AAP knocking court's doors on this.

AAP did not stake any claim for the formation of the govt. in Delhi case governor tried his best to get somebody to stake a claim. If he went too far is for the courts to decide, especially since somebody approached it. Else no case.

but not dissolving the house for an year- couldn't that be considered a malafide intention?

Generally, you cannot attribute malafide intention to governors president etc.

Governor is well within his rights to do so. someone now have to prove mala fide intention. else it will be a media trial.

but just to get it right- you're suggesting that governor's action is subject to Judicial review much beyond his "intents" too?

Governor’s action is subject to judicial review on the basis of the person who approaches the court. Have not seen courts take suo moto action.

To prove prima facie charge of malafide, one has to establish a negative result to somebody. Now, not dissolving an assembly can't be malafide in its own, unless it's proved that delay in dissolution led to damage to somebody. So, this is left to the wisdom of the constitutional authority. Every action of the authorities can't be questioned without sound basis. There is an assumption that the public office do act bonafide, unless proved otherwise!