A matter of survival

The UPA doesn’t need 272, only a majority among the MPs present and voting

The trust vote that the UPA government is seeking in the Lok Sabha as a consequence of the withdrawal of support by the Left parties over the India-US civil nuclear deal will be as an ordinary motion under rule 184.

The rule allows a motion to be moved, debated and put to vote. There is no special provision in the Constitution or in the rules of the house for what has come to be known as a trust vote or a confidence motion.

On the other hand, rule 198 specifically provides for a no-confidence motion. Also, it has been held that no substantive business should be conducted by the house until the no-confidence motion is disposed of by giving it precedence. This is a fact that is not widely appreciated. There is a general impression that the trust vote is mandated.

There is also much hype about the magical number of 272 that the UPA must muster in order to be in a majority in the house and thus remain in office. Whether it is the trust vote or a no confidence motion, a resolution or a bill, it is not necessary that it must be passed by a majority of the total membership of the house.

Winning a vote in the house is based on the number of members present and voting. If for example, only 400 members are present in the house, then the required number for winning would be 200 + 1. If among those present, some abstain and do not vote, then it is only the number of those voting for or against which will determine the victor.

The Constitution does not require that a government should always have a majority in the house. Minority governments are legitimate. All that the Constitution says is that the Union Council of Ministers shall be collectively responsible to the house of the people. This is interpreted to mean that it must enjoy the confidence of the house. The Indira Gandhi government was in minority in 1969.

The Narasimha Rao government was in a minority for the major part of the five-year term of the house. There were some five no confidence motions moved against the Narasimha Rao government. Every time, Rao  succeeded in winning over some opposition members to his side. Every time, the Rao government emerged stronger and survived.

The last case in which JMM members were bribed to vote for the Rao government brought to the public domain the methodology used for government survival.

Even if an ordinary bill introduced by the government is defeated in the house, it does not, in strict constitutional terms, entail the fall of the government. It is quite proper for the government to remain in office if it chooses to do so.

According to the convention of British parliament, which is generally followed in India, the government will quit if it is defeated on a money bill, on demand for grants, on a major policy issue or on the finance bill — that is, if the house "refuses supplies" and does not approve the proposed expenditure by the government. 

The practice of trust vote has emerged as a result of hung houses where no party gets a clear majority. When the Janata party government of Morarjee Desai was defeated on the floor of the house, the breakaway group led by Charan Singh staked its claim to form the government. President Sanjeeva Reddy, while allowing him to form the government, asked him to seek the confidence of the house.

Though the motion was admitted, Charan Singh resigned before the vote. Since then, successive Presidents have followed the practice of asking every new prime minister of a hung house or a coalition arrangement to seek a vote of confidence. Thus, in August 1989, VP Singh moved a motion of confidence which was adopted.

Chandra Shekhar won a motion of confidence in November 1990. Narasimha Rao won in July 1991. Atal Bihari Vajpayee did so in May 1996, Gowda in June 1996 and Gujral in 1997. In 1999 Vajpayee lost by a single vote. The second motions of confidence moved by VP Singh in October 1990 and by Gowda in April 1997 were also lost. 

When the confidence motion comes up on July 22 it would not be surprising if some hours are lost in pandemonium over the accusations and counter-accusations of sordid purchase of members, depending on the votes of some who stand convicted or charged with criminal offences of murder, kidnapping and other heinous crimes, and the controversy involving the Speaker's office.

Whosoever wins the battle, the dignity of the nation would be a casualty. A government surviving through dubious compromises would lack legitimacy and shall put the system to shame. Also, it may be the beginning of much worse to follow.

The writer is a former secretary-general of the Lok Sabha.