"Maharashtra Chief Minister and Governor not on same page:" Bombay High Court dismisses challenge to Speaker Election Rules

The Bombay High Court on Wednesday dismissed two public interest litigation (PILs) petitions filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Girish Mahajan and citizen Janak Vyas challenging rules for election of speaker and deputy speaker of Maharashtra Assembly [Janak Vyas v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. and connected PIL]..A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik also directed that the amounts deposited by the two petitioners as pre-condition to hear the matter be forfeited.To prove bonafidee the Court had during previous hearing asked Vyas to deposit ₹2 lakh and Mahajan to deposit ₹10 lakh..Even as it dismissed the plea, the Court made strong remarks about the manner in which the State of Maharashtra and the Governor of the State had been functioning with the citizens eventually suffering for the same."The unfortunate part is this that the two highest functionaries (Governor and Chief Minister) do not trust each other. You both please sit together and sort this out between yourselves. Erase all these differences. Your ramblings do not take the State forward. There is always the other side of coin. We all read. The governor and CM are not on the same page.... Who is suffering?" CJ Datta stated..The Governor and CM are not on the same page.Bombay High Court .The Bench was referring to its order of August 2021 wherein the Court had reiterated the constitutional duty of Governor to accept or return within a reasonable time the recommendations sent to him by Council of Ministers for nominations of the 12 members to the State Legislative Council failing which the statutory intent regarding the same will be defeated. "We are also a Constitutional Court, how have we been treated? We had passed an order on the 12 MLCs case. Today we are on March 22. Eight months have passed and still nothing has happened. The Chief Minister is the head of the executive. He has to run the state. We cannot say either of them is wrong. Has democracy died because the governor hasn't nominated 12 MLCs, an issue graver than the present? Our democracy is not as fickle/brittle," the Bench said..The two public interest litigation petitions challenged the State notification altering Rules 6 (election of speaker) and 7 (selection of deputy speaker) of the MLA Rules, claiming it is arbitrary and in violation the Constitution.The plea stated that by way of the amendment, the State essentially:removed the procedure of secret ballot and replaced it with voice vote;restricted the power of the Governor to notify the date of the election and the same has been transferred to the Chief Minister (which gives absolute power to the Chief Minister of State by holding elections); andreplaced ‘election’ of the deputy speaker for 'selection’.The reliefs sought in the plea were as follows:Order declaring the notification as unconstitutional and illegal in the eyes of law;Stay on the effect and operation of the notification pending the hearing of the PIL..Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani arguing for the BJP MLA stated that when amendments were made, Mahajan was serving his suspension period. The Court, however, did not accept this contention. "Say these rules are made in your absence, which affect the public at large. Can you come back and say that decision should be reversed. Can that be done? Can you seek reversal? No, it cannot be done!" CJ Datta stated.Jethmalani contended that public at large were effected due to the amendment. However, this was also not accepted by the Court."The public is least concerned with the election of speaker and deputy speaker. Just ask in this very court room who is the Lok Sabha speaker. How many will be able to reply? Until and unless this deals with public at large, this cannot be entertained in a public interest litigation," CJ Datta remarked. Jethmalani however stated that the Chief Minister could not ask the Governor at all to fix a date for the speaker election. He argued that the purpose of the Court was to ensure that everyone remains within their boundaries and follow good governance. Advocate Subhash Jha for Vyas also reiterated similar arguments. However, the Court remained unconvinced at the end of hearing which went on for over 2 hours. "The rules do not say anywhere the Chief Minister is unilaterally taking a decision to appoint speaker and deputy speaker. He is only taking a decision on the date of election," the Court noted, before dismissing the petitions. .[Read order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.