Maharashtra Politics Judgment: Ten conclusions by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered its verdict in a batch of petitions concerning the Maharashtra political crisis which had led to a lengthy legal battle between current Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray. .The Court held that the decision of former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to call for a floor test based on the request of 34 MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction was incorrect since Koshyari did not have enough objective material before him to conclude that the then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray had lost the confidence of the house However, the Constitution Bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha held that the status quo cannot be restored now since Thackeray did not face the floor test but chose to resign.Besides the above, the Court in its 141-page long judgment also ruled upon many others aspects concerning powers of Governor, speaker and defection. In this piece, we take a look at the ten important conclusions arrived at by the top court..Governor should not enter political arena.The Court was critical of then Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari's decision to call a floor test based on a request by Shinde faction.The Court said that dissent and disagreement within a political party must be resolved in accordance with the remedies prescribed under the party constitution, or through any other methods that the party chooses to opt for. The Court also emphasized that there is a marked difference between a party not supporting a government, and individuals within a party expressing their discontent with their party leadership and functioning and that cannot be a reason for the Governor to order floor test..Further, the Court stated that the Governor, who is the titular head of the State Government, must be cognizant of the constitutional bounds of the power vested in him and that the Governor cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the Constitution or a law made under it."Neither the Constitution nor the laws enacted by Parliament provide for a mechanism by which disputes amongst members of a particular political party can be settled. They certainly do not empower the Governor to enter the political arena and play a role (however minute) either in inter-party disputes or in intra-party disputes," the judgment stated..Governor was wrong to conclude Uddhav Thackeray lost majority.The Court observed that a letter by the rebel MLAs stating that those MLAs no longer wanted to be a part of the MVA government could not be taken to mean that they had withdrawn their support on the floor of the House..It noted that nothing in any of the communications relied upon by the then Governor indicated that the dissatisfied MLAs from the Shiv Sena intended to withdraw their support to the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers.."Nothing in any of the communications relied upon by the Governor indicates that the dissatisfied MLAs from the Shiv Sena intended to withdraw their support to the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers. At the highest, the various communications expressed the fact that a faction of MLAs disagreed with some policy decisions of the party," the Court said..Hence, it concluded that the Governor erred in relying upon the resolution signed by a faction of the Shiv Sena Legislature Party MLAs to conclude that the Chief Minister had lost the support of the majority of the House..Governor was justified in inviting Eknath Shinde to form governmentThe Court noted that the BJP had returned 106 candidates to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, the highest amongst all political parties. It formed the primary opposition party in the House. By a letter dated June 30, 2022, the then leader of opposition, Devendra Fadnavis, wrote to the Governor claiming that 106 MLAs of the BJP extend their support to Eknath Shinde for the formation of a government headed by Shinde. Eight independent candidates also extended their support to a government helmed by Shinde.On the same day, Shinde wrote to the Governor seeking to be called to form the government.In view of the above, the decision of the Governor dated June 30, 2022 inviting Shinde to form the Government was justified, the Court held..Cannot unseat Eknath Shinde now since Thackeray resigned voluntarily and did not face floor test.The Court said that although the Governor was not justified in calling upon Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House, the status quo ante as requested by the petitioners could not be restored.This, the Court said, was due to Thackeray not facing the floor test and instead, tendering his resignation.."This Court cannot quash a resignation that has been submitted voluntarily. Had Mr. Thackeray refrained from resigning from the post of the Chief Minister, this Court could have considered the grant of the remedy of reinstating the government headed by him," the Court stated..Political party and Legislature party are not same; Legislature party not entitled to appoint whip.The Court sought to distinguish between a 'political party' and 'legislature party'.In this regard, the Court noted the definition of legislature party given in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution as per which a legislature party means the group consisting of all the members of that House for the time being belonging to that political party.Thus, a legislature party in relation to a political party is the group of MLAs belonging to that particular political party. Thus, when it comes to appointment of whip in the house, the Court held that the same has to be done by the political party and not the legislature party.Therefore, the Court said that holding that the legislature party is entitled to appoint the whip would amount to severing the umbilical cord of the system envisaged by the Constitution and would render the Tenth Schedule, which deals with disqualification of members on the ground of defection, redundant."The political party and not the legislature party appoints the Whip and the Leader of the party in the House. Further, the direction to vote in a particular manner or to abstain from voting is issued by the political party and not the legislature party," the Court underscored.Hence, the Court held that the speaker's decision to appoint Bharatshet Gogawale as Shiv Sena's chief whip was illegal since a whip can only be appointed by the political party. Hence it directed,"The Speaker shall recognize the Whip and the Leader who are duly authorised by the Shiv Sena political party with PART F 140 reference to the provisions of the party constitution, after conducting an enquiry in this regard and in keeping with the principles discussed in this judgement."The Court also ruled that all procedural irregularities in legislative proceedings are subject to judicial review, and that Article 212 (courts not to inquire into proceedings of the legislature) of the Constitution cannot be interpreted to exclude such review. The Court held that the objective of legislative procedures is to facilitate deliberations leading to better outcomes while safeguarding constitutional values..Nabam Rebia judgment on speaker's powers to be reexamined by larger bench.The Court also directed the decision in Nabam Rebia to be referred to a larger bench as the following issues were not decided in the case:Whether temporary disablement of speaker can be misused by the legislators;Whether a constitutional hiatus will be ensued due to temporary disablement of speaker.Therefore, the question of whether notice of removal of speaker stops him from deciding disqualification of members was referred to a seven-judge bench..Speaker can decide on disqualification petition and ECI on which is real political party simultaneously The Speaker and the Election Commission of India are empowered to concurrently adjudicate on the petitions before them under the Tenth Schedule (defection) and under paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order respectively (on rival claims regarding who is the real political party).While adjudicating petitions under paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, the ECI may apply a test that is best suited to the facts and circumstances of the case before it, the Court said..‘Split’ in political party no longer a defence to MLAs/MPs members facing disqualification proceedingsThe effect of the deletion of paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule is that the defence of ‘split’ is no longer available to members facing disqualification proceedings. The Speaker would prima facie determine who the political party is for the purpose of adjudicating disqualification petitions under Paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule, where two or more factions claim to be that political party;.Supreme Court cannot decide disqualification petitions in the first instanceThe apex court cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule in the first instance and that power lies with the speaker.In the present case too, there are no extraordinary circumstances in the that warrant the exercise of jurisdiction by the top court to adjudicate disqualification petitions, the Court held. The speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period, it added..MLA facing disqualification can participate in the House.The Court said that an MLA, has the right to participate in the proceedings of the House regardless of the pendency of any petitions for their disqualification. The validity of the proceedings of the House in the interregnum is not “subject to” the outcome of the disqualification petitions, the bench made it clear..[Read Judgment]