NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday held that the then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari “erred” in relying on the resolution of a faction of MLAs of Shiv Sena to conclude that Uddhav Thackeray had lost the support of the majority of his party MLAs. The top court also said that the ''exercise of discretion by the Maharashtra Governor was not in accordance with the Constitution of India.''


COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING


The Supreme Court noted that there were ''no communications'' relied on by the Governor indicating that the dissatisfied MLAs wanted to withdraw support to the Uddhav Thackeray government. 


The five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court also concluded that the Governor had no objective material to ''call for a floor test'' in the Maharashtra Assembly, saying it cannot be used as a medium to resolve inter or intra-party disputes.


Can't Restore Uddhav Govt: SC


The bench rejected a request to restore the Uddhav Thackeray government because as its leader he chose to resign instead of facing a test of strength in the assembly. The CJI-led bench also said that it ''cannot disqualify Eknath Shinde and 15 other MLAs'' for revolting against the then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray in June last year.


Eknath Shinde Govt To Continue


The Supreme Court ruling implies that the Eknath Shinde-BJP government will continue in the state as Uddhav Thackeray resigned without facing a floor test. The top court said, "Status quo ante cannot be restored as Thackeray did not face the floor test and tendered his resignation. Hence the Governor was justified in administering oath to Shinde with the support of the largest party BJP."


Speaker to Decide Disqualification Proceedings: SC


The Supreme Court, while pronouncing judgement on a petition seeking disqualification of 16 Shiv Sena MLAs (Shinde faction), observed that this is an extraordinary circumstance that warrants the court to decide the proceedings in the matter. The SC, however, asked the Speaker to decide the disqualification proceedings.


The Supreme Court made these observations while responding to a batch of petitions filed by rival Shiv Sena factions in connection with the political crisis in Maharashtra triggered by a split in Shiv Sena last year. The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud also comprises Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha.


What Is The Matter?


The larger Constitution Bench was asked by the Supreme Court to decide whether Eknath Shinde and 15 other Shiv Sena MLAs could be disqualified for revolting against then CM Uddhav Thackeray in June last year. Uddhav Thackeray had pleaded before the Supreme Court to step in after Shinde, backed by the opposition BJP, engineered a split into Shiv Sena and later formed a new government in Maharashtra with the support of majority MLAs.


In August last year, the top court’s three-judge bench had referred to a five-judge Constitution bench the issues involved in the petition filed by rival groups of Shiv Sena in relation to the Maharashtra political crisis.


The bench then said that some of the issues involved in the Maharashtra political crisis may require a larger Constitution bench for consideration. There are various petitions pending before the apex court filed by both factions of Shiv Sena. On June 29, 2022, the top court gave a go-ahead to the floor test in the Maharashtra Assembly on June 30.


It had refused to stay the Maharashtra Governor’s direction to the then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority support on the floor of the House on June 30. After the apex court’s order, Uddhav Thackeray announced his resignation as the Chief Minister and Eknath Shinde was later sworn in as the Chief Minister. 


Spilt In Shiv Sena


Amid a power struggle between the Shinde and the Uddhav factions, the Election Commission had allotted the Shiv Sena party name and its bow-and-arrow symbol to Eknath Shinde-led group. Thackeray's smaller faction was given the name Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) and the symbol of a flaming torch.


Senior lawyers Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued for Uddhav Thackeray's team in the court while Harish Salve, Neeraj Kaul, and Mahesh Jethmalani represented Eknath Shinde's camp.