edited by: Oindrila Mukherjee
Last Update: February 15, 2023, 22:03 IST
A constitution bench of the Supreme Court is dealing with petitions related to the political crisis in Maharashtra following the rebellion of Eknath Shinde (L) against the MVA government, which was led by Uddhav Thackeray (R). (Image: ANI)
The Governor of Maharashtra also told the Supreme Court that “absolute power” takes away the confidence of legislators and they cannot effectively exercise their freedom of conscience
The Shiv Sena vs Sena battle continued for the second day before the Supreme Court, with the Governor of Maharashtra saying that the 10th Schedule is not a weapon to stifle dissent, but to control ideological defections. “The Tenth Schedule is not a weapon to suppress genuine legitimate dissent, but to control unprincipled defection. Autocratic power takes away the confidence of the legislators and they cannot effectively exercise their freedom of conscience,” Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for Maharashtra Governor before a Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of Supreme Court. India DY Chandrachud.
Mehta said the Speaker should not be allowed to change the Electoral College, which has the power to vote him out of office. “The Speaker should not be allowed to change the legislative body which has the power to vote him out. What are democratic principles?” questioned the top law officer of the government.
Opposing the submissions made by the Solicitor General, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Uddhav Thackeray camp, said, “SG (Solicitor General) cannot argue in his individual capacity. He says he is speaking for the governor.
He added: “Or so he says we have a fundamental right to buy people.”
Sibal also argued before the court that the politics of defection should not be decided in the House. “You have to go back to the political party. There is no deception in the party here. There is a rift in the house. Eknath Shinde was one of the 16 and he has become the chief minister,” said the senior lawyer.
Hearing the question of whether the Nabam Rebia judgment should be referred to a seven-judge bench for reconsideration, the bench said, “It is a difficult constitutional issue to answer. The consequences of both the situations have a lot to do with politics.” have a serious impact.”
Mehta said, “For a reference to a larger bench to be permanent, there needs to be compelling reasons and clear, irrefutable and obvious errors.”
He argued that merely because the said observations are not in their favor as per the belief of the petitioners, it cannot be a ground to reconsider the same.
The constitution bench is dealing with a batch of petitions related to the situation unfolding in Maharashtra in the wake of Shinde’s rebellion against the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi government. These have raised important constitutional questions relating to the interpretation of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, which deals with anti-defection law designed to prevent political defection.
read all latest politics news Here
