No-Confidence and Censure

In one line

A censure motion says why and may be moved against one Minister; a motion of no-confidence gives no reasons, lies only against the Council of Ministers, and if carried ends the Government.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: article 75(3) makes the Council of Ministers collectively responsible to the House of the People and article 164(2) makes a State Council collectively responsible to the Legislative Assembly, and a motion of no-confidence is the instrument by which that responsibility is enforced; it needs no statement of grounds, lies against the Council of Ministers as a body and not against an individual Minister, may be moved only in the popular House, and if carried obliges the Council to resign; a censure motion, by contrast, must state the grounds on which it is moved, may be directed against an individual Minister or against the Council, and if carried does not by itself end the Government though in practice it is treated as a grave reverse; and the motion of thanks on the President's address under article 87, or the Governor's under article 176, provides a third occasion on which the House takes a general reckoning of the Government's performance.

The distinction, set out as a table in the head

The two errors students make, and both are avoidable.

They say a censure motion removes a Minister. It does not, of itself. Ministers hold office during the pleasure of the President under article 75(2), and of the Governor under article 164(1); a censure carried is a political fact of the first magnitude and not a legal removal.

They say no-confidence lies against a Minister. It does not. Article 75(3) makes the responsibility collective, so the motion is against the Council of Ministers. That is the whole meaning of the word "collectively" in chapter 1150.

Why no-confidence needs no grounds

Because confidence is not a finding of fact.

A censure motion asserts that something was done wrong, and a House that carries it has found something. So the grounds must be stated, and the debate is about whether they are made out.

A motion of no-confidence asserts only that the House no longer supports the Government. There is nothing to prove. The House does not have to justify withdrawing its confidence any more than it had to justify giving it.