A constitution bench said on Thursday that Uddhav Thackeray, the former Maharashtra Chief Minister, could have been reinstated had he not resigned after a rebellion led by Eknath Shinde and Shiv Sena members.
A five-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, ruled that the court cannot revoke a resignation.
Additionally, the bench emphasised that it was impossible to revert to the previous state of affairs because Thackeray had already stepped down.
Eknath Shinde became Maharashtra’s Chief Minister with the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) support after Uddhav Thackeray resigned following the Shiv Sena lawmakers’ rebellion. This occurred after Thackeray stepped down just before a floor test was due to take place.
A constitutional bench also noted that the Governor erred in determining that Uddhav Thackeray had lost his majority in the House because of the rebellion. The bench stated that the Governor lacked objective evidence to support his call for a floor test. In addition, the bench emphasised that a floor test is not an appropriate method of resolving intra-party conflict.
Further, the bench noted that even Devendra Fadanvis, the deputy chief minister, and independent MLAs did not initiate a no-confidence motion. Therefore, the bench concluded that the Governor’s discretion was not following the law.
The Chief Justice of India, speaking on behalf of the bench, which included justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, also asserted that Bharat Gogawale was illegally appointed as the new whip of Shiv Sena. The bench ordered an inquiry into the matter and instructed the Speaker of the House to recognise the new whip only after the inquiry was completed.
Moreover, the constitution bench directed the Speaker to determine the real Shiv Sena before deciding on disqualification petitions against the rebels. The bench emphasised that the disqualification petitions being considered by the Speaker cannot be connected to the proceedings before the Election Commission of India.
While rejecting Shinde’s argument that the whip is appointed by the legislative party and not the political party, the constitution bench stated that the whip is, in fact, appointed by the political party. Furthermore, the bench emphasised that the courts have the authority to scrutinise the Speaker’s decision to appoint a party whip.
The legal battle in the Supreme Court regarding the Maharashtra political crisis began on June 27, 2022, when the court prohibited the then Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra assembly, a loyalist of Uddhav Thackeray, from disqualifying a group of rebel Shiv Sena legislators led by Eknath Shinde.
Reported by Matrika Shukla
