S
It is often the case in litigation relating to political developments that judgments outline high principles, but do not provide any relief to those affected by the violation of constitutional norms. Supreme Court verdict on political upheaval in Maharashtra Last year is one such. It is an indictment of the way regime change was achieved, but it does not change the status quo. A Constitution bench has given its verdict on Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari There was no objective material to doubt the then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray’s majority but still asked him to take the floor test on the basis of extraneous factors. As Mr Thackeray resigns without facing floor testThe court said it was unable to restore his government. It is true that it cannot rule out voluntary resignation, but the Court fails to acknowledge that his resignation was compelled by circumstances to which the Court itself was a party. On the eve of the floor test, a division bench of the Supreme Court allowed it to continue. Earlier, by an interim order, the court had extended the time given to the then rebel Shiv Sena MLAs led by Eknath Shinde from June 27 to July 12 to respond to applications seeking their disqualification for defection . The order gave the dissidents, along with the BJP, enough time to make political maneuvers without the threat of disqualification from the House. In fact, two court orders helped topple the ruling, a fact that the final verdict failed to acknowledge.
The Thackeray faction lost in a game of numbers, a game in which time is of the essence for both rulers who needed to protect their flocks and dissidents who needed to rope in enough defectors. In addition to warning governors against treating the ruling party’s internal problems as a potential loss of majority, the Court also clarified that whips and party leaders in the House must be appointed by the political party, not the legislator. by the team This has an impact on whose whip is binding on the legislators in the event of a split in a party. It has also held that the judgment in Nabam Rebia (2016) held that a speaker who is facing a notice for removal from office cannot be adjudicated in a case of disqualification under the anti-defection law. should be given, it should be reconsidered by a larger bench. This is welcome, as disqualified legislators should not be allowed to use a frivolous petition to remove the Speaker to overcome their disqualification. Mr Thackeray can now claim a moral victory, but in the realm of political alliances, a legislative majority is seen as more important than morals.