Outgoing West Bengal chief minister Mamata Banerjee’s dramatic rejection of the adverse assembly election results and her refusal to resign from her post made experts scratch their heads as the spectre of a potential constitutional crisis. The poll results, announced on May 4, showed a landslide victory for the BJP, which bagged 207 seats in the 294-seat assembly, while the TMC could win only in 80 constituencies.
Under the country’s parliamentary system, power transfers at the Centre and in the states have always been smooth as political leaders rarely deviated from established norms. In Tamil Nadu and Kerala, which also went to polls along with Bengal and had the ruling parties voted out, the incumbent chief ministers graciously accepted defeat and submitted their resignation letters to their respective governors.
The Bengal test
But in West Bengal, the statute book was put to test after Mamata took a defiant stance alleging large-scale electoral manipulation in over 100 assembly segments. She repeatedly said she would rather be dismissed by the governor than put in her papers, raising questions about the real intent behind her outburst: “I will not resign, I did not lose.”
The state cabinet, led by Mamata, continued to remain in office until its five-year tenure ended on May 7. Governor R N Ravi dissolved it by invoking Article 174(2)(b) of the Constitution. With the dissolution, Mamata’s refusal to resign became infructuous but her unusual act gave rise to several legal and constitutional questions.
Governor’s options
According to most legal and constitutional experts, the governor has two options. The first is to remove the chief minister under Article 164 of the Constitution, which says the CM holds office at the pleasure of the governor. This means the governor can dismiss a CM invoking the ‘doctrine of pleasure’. “The governor cannot exercise the Doctrine of Pleasure under normal circumstances when the CM continues to have a majority in the assembly. But in an extraordinary situation like this when the CM says ‘I refuse to resign’, she can be easily asked to step down and a new person be administered oath,” said senior advocate Vikas Singh, president, Supreme Court Bar Association.
The second option is to dissolve the assembly after completion of the five-year tenure under Article 174. In West Bengal, the governor chose the second option and likely avoided further counter reactions from the mercurial TMC chief.
Reasons and logic
Mamata is a seasoned politician who would not have acted in the way she did without having something in mind. Some reports said since the TMC is planning to move court against the election results, if she resigns, it might weaken her case. To substantiate this argument, the reports quoted the case of Uddhav Thackeray, who resigned as Maharashtra chief minister in 2022 in the wake of a vertical split in his party without facing a floor test ordered by the governor. When the petition against the governor’s decision to invite Shiv Sena rebel Eknath Shinde to form government reached the Supreme Court, the CJI-led bench observed that it could have re-instated Thackeray had he not resigned.
However, this may be a wrong reference in the current context, a senior legal officer said. Talking to this newspaper, the officer said the argument is misplaced as in the case of Thackeray, the assembly’s tenure had not ended. But in Bengal, there is a fresh mandate and the tenure of the assembly is over.
The officer quoted B R Ambedkar, the architect of the Constitution, to warn that however good a Constitution may be, it can be rendered ineffective if those entrusted with operating it refuse to uphold democratic conventions. A constitutional democracy functions not only through written laws but also through constitutional morality, as the unwritten discipline requires political leaders to respect institutional boundaries.
It is an established practice to offer resignation after losing an election, says senior advocate Sidharth Luthra. “The convention followed since the Constitution came into being, inherited from the British parliamentary system, is that the moment you lose an election, you tender your resignation.”
Concurring with the view, Delhi High Court Bar Association Vice President Sacchin Puri says after the results show a defeat, the incumbent chief minister should gracefully vacate office.
According to Vikas Singh, Mamata’s dramatic reaction is more of a posturing meant to evoke sympathy than any serious plan to pursue legal action.
Supreme Court observation
Mamata’s refusal to resign could be tied to Supreme Court judge Justice Joymalya Bagchi’s loaded observation in mid-April during a hearing on the controversial Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal. He said if the winning margin in the elections is less than the percentage of exclusion of voters in the SIR exercise, it may be a matter of concern.
"Unfair denial of participation as a candidate is a ground to cancel an election. But right to vote will per se, until and unless, it's an enormous number of electors, Section 100 of the RP Act does not fall as one of the grounds for cancelling an election. If 10% of electorate does not vote and the winning margin is more than 10%...what will happen? Suppose margin is 2% and 15% of electorate who are mapped could not vote, then maybe. We are not expressing any opinion, but we would definitely have to apply our minds. Please keep this in mind that the concern of a vigilant voter whose name correctly or incorrectly is not in the list is not in our minds," Justice Bagchi told the Election Commission of India. Granular analysis of the electoral outcome in West Bengal suggested that in quite a few assembly constituencies, the winning margin was indeed less than the percentage of exclusion of voters. That opened up the possibility of legal challenge in the Supreme Court; perhaps a battle for another day.
Unforeseen repercussions
Mamata’s action, however, has deeper repercussions. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a senior bureaucrat said: “Civil servants operate within the chains of constitutional authority. Bureaucracies are designed to execute decisions of a legally valid government. Once uncertainty emerges about the legitimacy of executive authority, administrative paralysis becomes inevitable, which is not good even for a few hours.” According to the official, in times of uncertainty, officers begin acting cautiously, fearing future legal scrutiny. Also, financial approvals slow down, law enforcement becomes politically sensitive, investors grow nervous, and welfare delivery weakens. “The constitutional crisis ceases to remain an elite legal debate and starts affecting ordinary citizens,” he added.
Didi’s options
There are no options left for Mamata to claim chief ministership though she can try and challenge the election results in court. However, this is a time-consuming process and may not bring the desired results. According to some reports, the TMC leader does not expect to win the case but may still initiate the legal process as a matter of principle and to record her protest against the election results.
Constitutional provisions:
Article 164(1)
The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and the other Ministers shall be appointed by the Governor on the advice of the Chief Minister, and the Ministers shall hold office during the pleasure of the Governor.
Article 172(1)
Every Legislative Assembly of every State, unless sooner dissolved, shall continue for five years from the date appointed for its first meeting and no longer and the expiration of the said period of five years shall operate as a dissolution of the Assembly: Provided that the said period may, while a Proclamation of Emergency is in operation, be extended by Parliament by law for a period not exceeding one year at a time and not extending in any case beyond a period of six months after the Proclamation has ceased to operate.
The tenure of the outgoing Bengal House began on May 8, 2021 and expired on May 7, 2026.
