The SC Ruling on Sena vs. Sena

Context: 

In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court held that then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari’s call for a trust vote, which led to the resignation of the Uddhav Thackeray ­led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government, was illegal.

Background: 

• Last year, the Uddhav Thackeray Led MVA government was toppled and replaced by another government, comprising a faction of the Shiv Sena, which claimed to be the “real” Sena, the Bharatiya Janata Party and several Independent MLAs.
• The first petition was filed by Eknath Shinde (Currrent CM) last June after notices were issued by then Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly against 40 rebel MLAs under the 10th Schedule of the Constitution which deals with disqualification on the grounds of defection. 
• Thereafter, petitions were filed by the Thackeray group challenging the then Maharashtra Governor’s decision to call for a trust vote and the swearing­ in of Mr. Shinde as Chief Minister. 
• The election of the new Speaker was also challenged.

Supreme Court verdict on disqualification petition:

• The Court said it cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification under the 10th Schedule. 
• There are no extraordinary circumstances in the instant case that warrant the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court to adjudicate disqualification petitions. 
• The Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period.
• The Court said an MLA has the right to participate in the proceedings of the House “regardless of the pendency of any petitions for their disqualification. 
• The validity of the proceedings of the House in the interregnum (the period between a regime change) is not ‘subject to’ the outcome of the disqualification petitions.

SC verdict on the floor test:

• The Governor had no objective material on the basis of which he could doubt the confidence of the incumbent government.
• Floor test cannot be used as a means to settle differences within a political party.
• But the Court also said that “status quo ante cannot be restored” because Mr. Thackeray did not face the floor test and resigned from the post.

On the role of the Governor: 

• A Governor must be aware of the fact that his very calling for a trust vote may precipitate the loss of majority for a government. 
• Calling for a trust vote may itself lead to the toppling of a government. Governors must not lend their offices for effectuating a particular result.

On MPs/MLAs facing disqualification:

• Allowing an MP or an MLA who is facing disqualification under the anti­defection law to participate in a floor test caused by his own doings will defeat the very purpose of the Tenth Schedule.
• Allowing such MLAs to attend a trust vote would amount to legitimising a constitutional sin. 

On Relation of political party to the legislature party:

• To hold that it is the legislature party which appoints the Whip would be to sever the figurative umbilical cord which connects a member of the House to the political party.
• Direction to vote in a particular manner or abstain is issued by the political party, and not the legislature party.
• Both the Whip and the Leader of the party in the House should be appointed only by the political party.

On the Speaker’s role

• The Speaker must not be swayed by the numbers in the House. 
• The Speaker must not base his decision as to which group constitutes the political party on a blind appreciation of which group possesses a majority in the Legislative Assembly.

News Source: The Hindu 

DOWNLOAD PDF