New DelhiThe Supreme Court, in a late Wednesday night order, refused to stay Thursday’s trust vote in the Maharashtra Assembly for the state’s Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government to prove its majority. MVA is an alliance of Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party and Congress.
The trust vote was ordered by Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari on Wednesday after a section of Shiv Sena legislators – led by minister Eknath Shinde – broke away from the party and rebelled against the government earlier this month, Due to which the strength of the MVA in the assembly was reduced.
Shiv Sena approached the Supreme Court against the governor’s order, citing the apex court’s order, which gave time to the rebels. until 12 july To respond to the notice issued by the Deputy Speaker of the State Legislative Assembly on the cancellation of his membership.
However, a vacation bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice JB Pardiwala passed an order at 9 pm on Wednesday, allowing the trust vote to be held as scheduled.
The bench said it did not find any ground to stay the special session of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly held for the trust vote, but added that the outcome of the trust vote would be subject to the outcome of several writ petitions pending before it.
“We do not think that the matter will become fruitless. Suppose if we come to know later that the floor test was conducted without authority, we can quash it. This is not an irreversible position,” the bench said. .
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, CM Uddhav Thackeray resigned as CM, knowing full well that the defeat in the trust vote was inevitable.
ThePrint looks at the pros and cons of Thursday’s trust vote and why the Supreme Court allowed it.
read also, Maharashtra: Preparing to stake claim on BJP government, expected to finish the details in 2 days
dispute before the bench
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Shiv Sena whip Sunil Prabhu, argued that until the issue of disqualification of the rebel MLAs is decided, the trust vote to be held on Thursday cannot take place.
“Rebel MLAs cannot be asked to represent the will of the people,” he argued.
In response, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for rebel MLA Eknath Shinde, argued that the pendency of disqualification proceedings was not a ground to stay the trust vote proceedings as they are “separate zones”.
Kaul argued that it was a well-established proposition in law that a floor test (in which a sitting Chief Minister has to prove his majority among all the members present and voting) should not be delayed and there was no ground to thwart the proceedings related to mere disqualification.
Where does the natural dance of democracy take place? on the floor of the house. I have rarely seen a party so scared of conducting a floor test,” Kaul said.
Meanwhile, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the governor, argued that the governor was “overall” satisfied that a floor test was necessary.
Drawing from previous examples
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has had to decide on a trust vote or floor test.
In April 2020, the SC had delved deeper into the issue while probing a similar incident in Madhya Pradesh.
It had then said that the governor was empowered to direct a sitting CM to conduct a floor test to demonstrate “their (members’) confidence in the government”. The top court had clarified that such floor tests usually take place after coming to power, with the governor having the power to direct the floor test of an existing council.
Similarly, in 2019, the Supreme Court, while examining Shiv Sena’s plea for floor test against the then BJP government in Maharashtra, said directed The governor asked to conduct a floor test and set a “time limit” for the same.
Test to be considered ‘as soon as possible’
Interestingly, while deciding the petition of Shiv Sena, the court had said that it is necessary to conduct the test at the earliest to avoid horse-trading.
“In such a situation, when there is a possibility of horse-trading when there is a delay in the floor test, it becomes up to the court to act to protect the democratic values. An immediate floor test, in such a case, may be the most effective mechanism to do so,” the court had observed.
Rejecting the pleas that the Supreme Court does not have the power to direct such trials, the apex court referred to earlier orders where a trust vote was similarly conducted.
For example, in 1998, the SC ordered The Uttar Pradesh assembly had to be called for a comprehensive strength test as two people were claiming the chief minister’s post.
In many cases the court also appointed Observers asked to ensure neutrality of the process and even ordered videography of such votes.
It is observed that the court is the “prahari kuviwe” (vigilant guardian) of the Constitution and is under an obligation to ensure that such trials are conducted in a free and fair manner.
Members can vote
However, it is noted that members may not forced To participate in such votes, when such floor test is being ordered. For example, while considering the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Case In 2019, the court had given the option to 15 rebel MLAs to leave the trust vote.
The court had then said, “At this stage, there is an imperative need to maintain constitutional balance and conflicting and competing rights.”
In the case of Madhya Pradesh, the court had held that the trust vote need not be adjourned because of pending disqualification proceedings against the members.
Terming it as the “fixed way” to ascertain the will of the House, it had said that disqualification and trust vote operate in completely different areas.
Akshat Jain is a student of National Law University, Delhi and intern at ThePrint
(Edited by Polomi Banerjee)
read also, How Devendra Fadnavis left behind his 2019 exit, lived up to the promise of ‘Mee Punha Yeh’