The Supreme Court on Thursday referred the case of Shiv Sena’s Uddhav and Shinde to a 7-judge bench. The Supreme Court said that Uddhav Thackeray did not face the floor test. he resigned. In such a situation, the court cannot cancel the resignation. We cannot restore the old government. The Supreme Court said that there was no such indication anywhere in the conversation of the MLAs with the Governor, in which the disgruntled MLAs had asked the government to withdraw their support. The Governor erred in believing the statement of a group of Shiv Sena MLAs that Uddhav Thackeray did not have the majority of MLAs.
The Supreme Court said that the 2016 decision was not correct. It has been said that if a case of disqualification is made against the Deputy Speaker or Speaker, then they will not have the right to take any decision. The Speaker appointed Godawale, a member of the Shinde faction, as a whip, a decision which was illegal. In November 2019, the legislators unanimously elected Uddhav Thackeray as the leader of the party.
Consideration of disqualification of 15 rebel MLAs
The decision to disqualify 15 rebel MLAs of Shinde and his faction in Maharashtra should be considered by a larger bench. The Supreme Court said that if the MLAs want to go out of the government, they can only form groups. Floor test cannot be used to settle internal disputes within the party.
The Mahavikas Aghadi coalition government in Maharashtra fell in June last year following a rebellion by Shiv Sena members. After this, on June 30, Shinde took oath as the Chief Minister. Uddhav Thackeray went to the Supreme Court against him. The matter was transferred to a five-judge constitution bench. A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha is giving its verdict on this.
On March 16, the last day of hearing, the Supreme Court wondered how the court could restore the Uddhav government as Uddhav had already resigned before the floor test. Uddhav has demanded in his petition that the Governor’s order of June 2022 be quashed, in which Uddhav was asked to prove his majority in the House. On this, the Uddhav faction said that the status quo should be restored, that is, the Uddhav government should be restored because the court had ordered the restoration of the Nabam Tuki government in Arunachal Pradesh in 2016.
may face disqualification
Uddhav’s lawyer Kapil Sibal said that the political party has primacy in the relationship between the legislature and the political party. Sibal argued that the Constitution does not recognize any group, be it a majority or a minority. Sibal further argued that the MLAs’ disagreement with the government was outside the House and not inside the House.
CJI Chandrachud wanted to know from the lawyer of the Uddhav Thackeray camp whether the governor could not listen to the members who wanted to withdraw support from the government. The CJI said that there was a section of legislators who did not want to support the then Uddhav government. He may face disqualification. This can affect the strength of the house.
Sibal said this used to happen when there was no Tenth Schedule
Kapil Sibal replied that this used to happen when there was no Tenth Schedule of the Constitution. He said that the governor cannot ask for a trust vote on the basis of the demand of any group, because the demand for a trust vote depends on the alliance. Suddenly some MLAs in Maharashtra have decided to withdraw their support. The Uddhav Thackeray group argues that the other groups represent a legislative party and not a political party. He also said that dissent is the hallmark of democracy.