The Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on March 16 at the conclusion of the long arguments by the Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde (pictured) factions, which lasted nine days from February 21. (PTI/File)
The Supreme Court said that Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari did not act according to the rule of law when he asked Uddhav Thackeray to face the floor test. But after the latter resigned, the governor thought fit to invite Eknath Shinde to form the government, the court said.
The Uddhav Thackeray government cannot be restored in Maharashtra as he resigned as chief minister and did not face the floor test, the Supreme Court said on Thursday in a major victory for Eknath Shinde, who along with 15 MLAs The rebellion ousted the Maha Vikas Aghadi government and triggered a long battle for control of the Shiv Sena.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, while delivering its verdict on the cross-petitions filed by the Thackeray and Shinde factions, said the apex court is not required to rule on the disqualification proceedings of the 16 MLAs The Speaker of Maharashtra should be released. Meeting.
The Supreme Court, however, observed that the then Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari had not acted in accordance with the rule of law when he asked Thackeray to face the floor test in June 2022.
Here’s a look at the top 10 highlights of the Supreme Court proceedings on Thursday maharashtra political crisis,
- Supreme Court ruled that Uddhav Thackeray government cannot be restored in Maharashtra as he resigned and did not face floor test
- The court, however, said that the Governor’s action was not in accordance with the rule of law. It said that it was not proper for the governor to summon Thackeray to prove his majority “as he did not have objective material”.
- but again Thackeray resignsThe court said that it was appropriate for the governor to invite Eknath Shinde to form the government.
- The bench said that there is no extraordinary circumstance in this case that the Supreme Court has to decide on the disqualification proceedings
- It asked Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narvekar to decide on the disqualification petitions of 16 MLAs
On March 16, the Supreme Court had reserved its verdict on the conclusion of the long debate by the Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde factions, which lasted nine days from February 21.
On the last day of the hearing, the top court wondered how it could restore the Uddhav Thackeray government after the chief minister had resigned before facing the floor test, with the faction led by him seeking to quash the governor’s decision. Had demanded Order to CM for floor test in the House on June 2022.
The Thackeray faction made impassioned submissions before the court, urging it to “turn back the clock” and restore the “status quo ante” (pre-existing conditions), as it had done in 2016 when it replaced Nabam Tuki as Arunachal chief minister. was re-established. State.
The Uddhav Thackeray faction was represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, Devdutt Kamat and advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, while the Shinde camp was represented by senior advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and advocate Abhikalp Pratap Singh. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Governor’s office.
The top court had on February 17 refused to refer a batch of pleas related to the Maharashtra political crisis to a seven-judge bench for reconsideration of the 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment on Arunachal Pradesh.
The 2016 judgment spoke about the powers of the Speaker and ruled that he cannot proceed on the plea of disqualification of legislators if a prior notice seeking his removal is pending before the House .
On June 29, 2022, at the height of the Maharashtra turmoil, the apex court refused to stay the governor’s direction to the Thackeray-led 31-month-old MVA government to hold a floor test. Sensing defeat, Thackeray resigned to power a Shiv Sena-BJP government led by Shinde.
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 army, in which several Constitutional questions were raised. Defection, merger and disqualification.
