Uddhav Vs Shinde: Apex Court Delivers Verdict Allowing Shinde to Continue as CM Though Governor’s Decision Was Wrong To Call For a Floor Test

(Judicial Quest News Network)

New Delhi:(11, May 2023),  With regard to the Maharashtra Political Crisis, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that the decision of former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari’s decision to call for al floor test based on the request of 34 MLAs of Eknath Shinde faction was incorrect.

A Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha observed,

However, the court had held that the Status Quo cannot be restored now since Uddhav Thakrey did not face the floor test but choose to resign.

“The Governor was not justified in calling upon Mr. Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House because he did not have reasons based on objective material before him, to reach the conclusion that Mr. Thackeray had lost the confidence of the House. However, the status quo ante cannot be restored because Mr. Thackeray did not face the floor test and tendered his resignation”. The court held.

The bench was referring to the resolution dates 21 June, 2022 which specified that some MLAsof the Shive Sena Legislature Party (SSLP) were dissatisfied with the functioning of Uddhav Thackery-led MVA government. The Apex Court also took note of a letter dated 25 June, 2022 sent by some MLAs of the Shive Sena to Governor, stating that they “no longer wanted to be a part of the corrupt MVA government.”

The Apex Court in its verdict said that the governor was wrong to conclude that Uddhava Thackery had lost majority in the house, the governor must have used objective criteria and not use subjective satisfaction even if it is assumed that MLAs wanted to leave the government, it was only dissatisfaction portrayed.  Floor test cannot be used as a medium to solve a intra party difference or interparty differences. There is a difference between a party not supporting government and members of some political party being unhappy,” observed the court.

The Governor is the titular head of the State Government. He is a Constitutional functionary who derives his authority from the Constitution. This being the case, the Governor must be cognizant of the constitutional bounds of the power vested in him. He cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the Constitution or a law made under it.

Neither the Constitution nor the laws enacted by Parliament provide for a mechanism by which disputes amongst members of a particular political party can be settled. They certainly do not empower the Governor to enter the political arena and play a role (however minute) either in inter-party disputes or in intra-party disputes. It follows from this that the Governor cannot act upon an inference that he …

The Supreme Court further said in its verdict that nothing in these communications indicated that the dissatisfied MLAs from Shive Sena intended to withdraw their support to the Chief Minister and the Council of ministers.

At the highest, the various communications expressed the fact that a faction of MLAs disagreed with some policy decisions of the party. The course of action they wished to adopt in order to air their grievances and redress them was, at the time the floor test was directed to be conducted, uncertain. Whether they would choose to enter deliberations with their colleagues in the House or in the political party, or mobilise the cadres, or resign from the Assembly in protest, or opt to merge with another party, was uncertain. Therefore, the Governor erred in relying upon the resolution signed by a faction of the SSLP MLAs to conclude that Mr. Thackeray had lost the support of the majority of the House. The Court observed.

The Genesis of the case is that the split of the Shive Sena political party into two faction, one led by Uddhav Thaceray and the other by Eknath Shinde, who went on to replace Thackeray as Maharashtra’s Chief Minister after the split in June.

Rebel MLAs of the Shinde faction received the disqualification notices from the then Deputy speaker for acting the party whip while voting during the Member of Legislative Council (MLC) elections in the State.

The Supreme Court was called to consider whether rebel members should be disqualified.OnJune27,2022, the Court granted interim relief to Shinde and his rebel group of MLAs by extending the time to file responses to the disqualification notices issued by the Deputy Speaker, till July, 12, 2022. Subsequently the Court on June 29alos gave go ahead to a floor test called for by Governor Nhagat Singh Koshiyari.

This led to the fall of the Uddhav Thaceray government, following which Shinde took oath as Chief Minister with the backing of the BJP, the single largest party in the house.

The Thackeray camp meanwhile filed various petitions before top court seeking legal remedies and challenging the summoning of the Assembly by the Governor of Maharashtra for conducting a floor test.

A separate petition was filed by Uddhav challenging the removal of the then newly-appointed Speaker removing Ajay Chaudgry and Sunil prabhu from the posts of leader as well as Chief Whip of the Shive Sena Legislature Party, respectively.

The Court emphasized that the discretion vested in the Governor to call for a floor test is not unfettered, and must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law. Governor is a constitutional functionary who derives his authority from the Constitution. This being the case, the governor must be cognizant of the constitution constitutional bounds of the power vested in him.He cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the constitution or law made under it.

The power of the Governor to act without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is of an extraordinary nature. The exercise of such power has ramifications on parliamentary democracy.

Hence, the ambit of the exercise of such power by the Governor must be calibrated to meet the exigencies of situations where the Governor is satisfied on the basis of objective material that there is sufficient cause to warrant the exercise of their extraordinary power.

The discretion to call for a floor test is not an unfettered discretion but one that must be exercised with circumspection, in accordance with the limits placed on it by law.

The Apex Court placed strong reliance on the MP Political Crisis case which held that the decision to call for a floor test should be based on objective material and reasons which are relevant and germane to the exercise of discretion, not extraneous to it. The court emphasised that the Governor should not use their discretionary power to destabilize or displace democratically elected governments.