As per the case facts, a political crisis arose in a state legislature, leading to changes in government, disputes over the Speaker's election, and proceedings before the Election Commission. Various ... petitions were filed challenging the Speaker's authority to rule on disqualification petitions, the Governor's decision to call for a floor test, and the appointments of party whips and leaders. The Supreme Court was asked to review a prior judgment concerning the Speaker's powers. The question arose regarding the Speaker's authority to adjudicate disqualification petitions while a resolution for their removal is pending, the Governor's power to call for a floor test without objective grounds, and the implications of removing Paragraph 3 from the Tenth Schedule on the 'split' defense for party members. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the Speaker cannot rule on disqualification petitions while a motion for their removal is active. It determined that the Governor was not justified in calling for a floor test without objective reasons, but could not restore the previous government due to the Chief Minister's resignation. The Court also confirmed that the 'split' defense is no longer valid due to the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule, and the Speaker is the primary authority for determining the legitimate political party in disqualification cases. The Governor's action in inviting the new Chief Minister to form the government was deemed justified.