SC refuses to interfere with the formation of Eknath Shinde government

New Delhi: Supreme Court Thursday refused to interfere with the formation of Eknath Shinde government with the support of BJP as Uddhav Thackeray resigned without facing the floor test.

Supreme Court held that it cannot order the restoration of Uddhav Thackeray government as he resigned without facing floor test, although the Governor's decision for floor test was wrong and Speaker was wrong in appointing whip of Eknath Shinde group.

The apex court pronounced its verdict on a clutch of cross-petitions filed by the Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde factions of the Shiv Sena pertaining to the 2022 Maharashtra political crisis.

Delivering the verdict on pleas related to the political crisis that led to the fall of the three-party MVA government led by Uddhav Thackeray following a revolt by Shinde, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said, "Article 212 cannot be interpreted to mean that all procedural infirmities of the house are beyond the pale of judicial review. To hold that it is the legislative party which appoints the whip will mean severance of the umbilical chord with the political party. It means group of MLAs can disconnect from the political party. Whip appointed political party is crucial for tenth schedule."

Observing that the Speaker's decision to appoint Mr. Gogawale (backed by Shinde group) as the whip of the Shiv Sena party was illegal, CJI Chandrachud said, "In Nov 2019, MLAs unanimously resolved to appoint Uddhav Thackeray as the party leader and Eknath Shinde as the group leader. The Speaker was aware of the emergence of two factions in the legislative party on 3 July 2022 when he appointed a new whip.

"The Speaker did not attempt to identify which of the two persons - Mr.Prabhu or Mr. Gogawale- was the whip authorised by the political party. Speaker must recognize only the whip appointed by the political party."

CJI said that ECI can decide under the symbols order despite the pendency of proceedings before Speaker.

"To hold that the ECI is barred from deciding symbols order will be like staying proceedings indefinitely," CJI said.

Further, the CJI said that no faction or a group can argue that they constitute the original party in defence of the disqualification proceedings.

"The defence of split is no longer available under the tenth schedule. The defence must be found within the tenth schedule as it currently stands," he said.

"If the Speaker and the Govt circumvents the no-confidence motion, the Governor will be justified in calling for a floor test without the aid and advise of the council of ministers," Supreme Court said.

Supreme Court held that the Governor had no objective material to doubt the confidence of the MVA govt and call for a floor test and the resolution relied on by the Govt did not indicate that MLAs wanted to withdraw support.

"The assembly was not in session when Mr. Fadnavis wrote to the Govt. The opposition parties did not issue any no-confidence motion. The Governor had no objective material to doubt the confidence of the Govt," CJI said.

"Even if it is assumed that the MLAs wanted to exit the govt, they constituted only a faction. Floor test cannot be used to resolve internal party disputes.

Neither the Constitution nor the law empower the Governor to enter the political arena and play a role either in inter-party or intra-party disputes.

Nothing in any of the communications relied on by the Governor indicated that the dissatisfied MLAs wanted to withdraw support to the Government" 

Coming down heavily on the then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari, Supreme Court said that he erred in relying on the resolution of a faction of MLAs of Shiv Sena to conclude that Mr.Thackeray had lost support of the majority of MLAs.

"The security concerns expressed by MLAs have no bearing on the support of the Government. This was an extraneous consideration on which the Governor placed reliance on. Governor ought not to have relied on the letter. The letter did not indicate that Mr. Thackeray lost support," CJI said.

"Mr. Fadnavis and the 7 MLAs could have moved for a no-confidence motion. Nothing prevented from doing that," CJI added.

Supreme Court held that the exercise of discretion by the Governor was not in accordance with the Constitution.

On the relief to the petitioners, Supreme Court held that Thackeray did not face the floor test. "Had Mr. Thackeray not resigned, this Court could have restored."

"Status quo ante cannot be restored as Mr.Thackeray did not face the floor test and tendered his resignation. Hence the Governor was justified in administering oath to Mr.Shinde with the support of the largest party BJP," the constitution bench said.