Using strong words to express its “serious concern” over the active role being played by governors in state politics, the Supreme Court last week said it is very disconcerting that they are becoming part of political processes to precipitate the fall of elected governments.
Referring to then Maharashtra governor B S Koshiyari’s decision to ask then chief minister Uddhav Thackeray to face a floor test on June 30 last year, at a time when Shiv Sena was imploding with rebellion, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha said the revolt was an internal matter of Shiv Sena and there was no material to suggest that Sena as a political party had withdrawn support to the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government formed in coalition with Congress and NCP - an observation that was refuted by the solicitor general, who represented the former governor.
After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court said it could be difficult to reinstate the Uddhav Thackeray government in Maharashtra even if it finds Koshyari’s decision asking Uddhav Thackeray to face the trust vote in the assembly to be unconstitutional. “How can we reinstate a government which itself admitted (to) having lost majority in the House by resigning voluntarily without facing the trust vote?” asked the SC as the nine-day marathon arguments on petitions filed by both the Thackeray and Eknath Shinde camps on the 2022 Maharashtra political crisis concluded on Thursday. The SC bench has reserved its verdict on the petitions.
During the concluding submissions of senior advocate A M Singhvi, the SC bench asked, “If on analysis of the arguments from both sides and on scrutiny of documents, we conclude that the governor had no material to ask the CM to face a trust vote on June 30, what consequential relief should be granted?”
Singhvi, representing the Thackeray faction, replied that the only relief would be to restore the Maha Vikas Aghadi government. To that, the CJI said, “If you had faced the trust vote, then on finding that the governor’s decision was unconstitutional, we could have set aside the trust vote. But you did not want to face the trust vote. If we restore you now, it would create a constitutional conundrum.”
