The Supreme Court on Thursday wondered how it could restore the Uddhav Thackeray government in Maharashtra after the chief minister tendered his resignation before facing a floor test, with the faction led by him challenging the governor’s June 2022 order. Pitched for separation. CM will take floor test.
The Thackeray faction made a forceful submission before the court, urging the court to turn back time and restore the “status quo ante” (pre-existing condition), as it had done in 2016 when it replaced Nabam as the chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh. Tuki was reinstalled. A day after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Thackeray block, urged a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud to set aside Governor BS Koshyari’s floor test order, the apex court only allowed His conduct in calling for votes was questioned. On the basis of differences between Shiv Sena MLAs.
The bench took note of the submissions of senior advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for Uddhav Thackeray, and quipped, “So, according to you, what do we do? Reinstate you? But you resigned. It is as if the court should It is being asked to reinstate the government which has resigned before the floor test.” The bench, also comprising Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha, reserved its verdict on the cross petitions filed by Thackeray and the Maharashtra chief minister. Minister Eknath Shinde’s faction asked Singhvi, “How can the court reinstate the Chief Minister, who did not even face the floor test.” The apex court heard the arguments of both the parties and the Governor, who was represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, in nine working days.
While a battery of eminent lawyers including Sibal, Singhvi, Dawadutt Kamat and Amit Anand Tiwari appeared for the Thackeray group, senior advocates NK Kaul, Mahesh Jethmalani and Maninder Singh represented the Shinde faction. During the day-long hearing, Singhvi referred to the events leading up to the resignation of the Thackeray government and said, “My resignation is irrelevant.” Your Lordship is not reinstating anyone but status quo.” He referred to the 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment by which the top court set the political clock in Arunachal Pradesh by reinstating Tuki as the state’s chief minister. Backed the BJP and ousted the BJP from power.Supported the Kalikho Pul government.
Singhvi said, “The resignation of the former CM on June 29, 2022 would be irrelevant… because once the illegal act of the Governor is allowed to be implemented, the result of the trust vote was a known and foregone conclusion, and in fact there had no need to subject himself to it.” He presented the crux of the issue raised by Thackeray that the direction to hold the trust vote was an “illegal act” as the Governor had done so by recognizing a faction of 34 MLAs.
“The involvement or absence of involvement of the former chief minister will not in any way dilute the fundamental and basic illegality,” he added.
The CJI told Singhvi, “No, but status quo would be a logical thing, provided you lost the vote of confidence on the floor of the House. Because, then clearly you have been thrown out of power on the basis of a vote of confidence, which has been bypassed.” Can be done. Look at the intellectual puzzle… You have decided not to face the trust vote.” Terming the development a “red herring”, the senior lawyer said before the governor ordered a floor test, the matter was on top was pending in the court.
The court asked, “So, you are saying that Thackeray resigned only because he was called by the governor to face the floor test?”
Singhvi replied in the affirmative and said that since the matter was sub-judice, the Governor’s subsequent direction for a floor test should not have been allowed.
The CJI quipped, “You are clearly accepting the fact that you resigned because the trust vote would have gone against you.”
As soon as the court sat for the hearing, the Thackeray faction made an impassioned plea to quash Koshyari’s order for Thackeray to take the floor test, saying democracy would be at risk if not reversed.
Sibal, representing the Thackeray block, urged the bench to set aside the order, a day after the apex court said such action by a governor could topple an elected government and the state’s governor could not influence a particular result. Can’t lend your office for.
Concluding his rejoinder arguments, Sibal said, this is a moment in the history of this court when the future of democracy will be decided.
“I am quite sure that without the intervention of this court our democracy will be in danger as no elected government will be allowed to survive. It is with this hope that I request this court to allow this petition and set aside the Governor’s order (test of strength).”
Sibal said that if Shiv Sena MLAs had lost faith in the government, they could have voted against it in the House when a money bill was introduced and reduced it to a minority.
He said, ‘It is not that the government cannot run in minority. Former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao used to run a minority government. There is no scope for the Governor to recognize those (rebel) MLAs and call them for the floor test. Here they want to topple the government and become Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister and use the post of Governor for that. I don’t want to say anything more than that, everything is in public domain,” Sibal said.
“I have my political experience and the Lordship has his judicial experience, which is enough to understand this. I can say that we have lowered ourselves to such an extent that we are mocked. People no longer trust us. Don’t,” Sibal said, making an impassioned pitch to quash the governor’s order for a floor test.
The senior lawyer insisted that the governor can only deal with coalitions and political parties and not individuals, otherwise it would “create havoc”.
“Now, if all Shiv Sena had gone to BJP, would the governor have called for the floor test even then. This is the ‘Aaya Ram Gaya Ram’ principle that we abandoned long ago. It is disastrous for democracy…The MLA has no identity other than being a representative of a political party.”
“When we enter this court we are in a different aura, we come with hope, expectation. If you look at the history of civilizations, all injustice is based on power. You (top court) are the hope of 1.4 billion people and you cannot allow democracy to be destabilized in this ridiculous and senseless manner.”
During the hearing, Sibal also referred to the Emergency imposed by Indira Gandhi.
“There have been occasions like the ADM Jabalpur (1976 judgment), which is inconsistent with what this court has done over the years. It is an equally important matter for the survival of our democracy, Sibal said.
The controversial 1976 judgment, delivered by PN Bhagwati during the Emergency in force from June 25, 1975 to March 21, 1977, held that the right not to unlawfully detain a person in the interest of the state (habeas corpus) was suspended can be done.
A political crisis had erupted in Maharashtra after open rebellion in Shiv Sena and on June 29, 2022, the apex court refused to stay Maharashtra Governor’s direction to the 31-month-old MVA government to hold a floor test in the assembly. To prove his majority.
Sensing an imminent defeat, Uddhav Thackeray had resigned, paving the way for Eknath Shinde to become the chief minister.
Thackeray block gets another blow Election The commission declared the Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena on February 17, 2023, and allotted it the original bow and arrow election symbol of the party founded by Balasaheb Thackeray.
On August 23, 2022, a three-judge bench of the apex court headed by the then Chief Justice NV Ramana had framed several questions of law and referred to the five-judge bench petitions filed by two factions of the Shiv Sena, including Several constitutional questions were raised. Defection, merger and disqualification.
read all latest politics news Here
(This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed)