Question

If the President dissolves the Assembly before the floor test, is it valid?

Hint:

Any question involving majority → Always answer: “Floor test is mandatory.” Governor’s subjective view is irrelevant without House verification.

Answer 1

In general, No. Dissolving a State Legislative Assembly before conducting a floor test is unconstitutional, unless there is overwhelming material proving a genuine breakdown of constitutional machinery. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the majority of a government must be tested on the floor of the House—not decided by the Governor, nor by the Union Government.
Why is pre–floor test dissolution invalid?

In S.R. Bommai (1994), the Supreme Court held that whenever a question of majority arises, the Governor must order a floor test.
If the Assembly is dissolved before the floor test, it amounts to premature destruction of the democratic process.
The Governor cannot rely on defections, letters, or newspaper reports to assume that the government has lost majority.
Important precedents:

Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) – Dissolution of the Bihar Assembly before the floor test was held unconstitutional. The Court held the Governor’s actions to be mala fide and violative of democratic norms.
Nabam Rebia v. Dy. Speaker (2016) – Governor cannot act without objective material; floor test is essential.
Shiv Sena v. ECI (2023) and other political crisis cases reaffirm that floor test is the only constitutional method to prove majority.
Constitutional doctrine:
\[ Majority → House; Not Governor. \] Therefore, dissolution before the floor test violates:

Democratic federalism,
Basic structure,
Article 356 safeguards as laid down in Bommai.
Thus, except in rare situations of total paralysis (e.g., mass resignation making the Assembly non-functional), dissolving the Assembly before a floor test is unconstitutional.