Governor’s actions causing a government to topple is “very very serious for democracy”, the Supreme Court observed on Wednesday, questioning the Maharashtra governor’s rationale in calling for a trust vote that led to a political upheaval in the state last year with Eknath Shinde taking over as the chief minister following Uddhav Thackeray’s resignation.
A constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, emphasised that governors must exercise their powers with the “greatest circumspection” and must not lend their offices to trigger a particular result.
“We are on governor’s power. Governor should not enter into any area which precipitates the fall of a government…The governor must equally be conscious of the fact that his calling for a trust vote may itself be a circumstance which may lead to toppling of a government. Governors should not lend their offices for effectuating a particular result,” remarked the bench, which also included justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha.
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, representing the governor in a clutch of petitions arising out of the vertical split in the Shiv Sena last year, faced a volley of queries from the constitution bench as he sought to defend the governor’s decision to ask Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House. Thackeray resigned on June 29 last year, hours after the top court declined to stay the floor test scheduled to be held a day later on the directive of the Maharashtra governor.
The bench wondered if the letter written by the Shinde camp expressing disagreement with the party leadership was reason enough to call for a floor test. “If he (governor) was of the view that there was certain dissension, can that be a ground for the governor to call for a trust vote? Then you are virtually breaking the party… The governor, by exercising this power, can precipitate the fall of a government. This is very very serious for our democracy,” it observed.
The SG, on his part, emphasised that the governor was duty bound to ask Thackeray to prove majority after the letter by 47 MLAs, which included the members from the Shinde camp and some independent MLAs, said they were withdrawing support to the government.
“A chief minister has to enjoy confidence throughout his tenure and not just at the time of being sworn in. Otherwise, this will the death knell for democracy to say once sworn-in, he does not have to care about enjoying the majority,” said Mehta, adding the letter to the governor by Shinde camp also highlighted the continuing threats to the life of the rebels.
The bench, however, replied: “Mr Mehta, what happens is, people start ditching a government. Then, the governors are willing allies saying hold trust votes. So, you give sanctity to this. This is a very sad spectacle in our democracy.”
It pointed out that the 34 MLAs from the Shinde faction had to be treated as Shiv Sena members and whether or not they could incur the disqualification was not for the governor to consider since it is exclusively for the Speaker of the House to decide those issues. “You can never allow the governor to ask for a trust vote when there is absolutely nothing to shake the majority on the floor of the house. Governor’s trust vote is when majority in the house is shaken and not to test who remains with a party or not,” the bench added.
Unless there is some subsequent event which alters the legal constitution of the government, the governor must continue to have before him and analyse the situation as it was before the government was formed, it said.
The court was emphatic that the Thackeray faction had clearly lost the number game and were reduced to a minority but added that it was also concerned that the governor’s actions should not precipitate fall of a government.
Responding to the complaints made by the MLAs of the rebel group regarding threats to them and their families, the bench said this was essentially a law-and-order situation and that it cannot lead to unseating a running government.
“All this hyperbole-…it’s Maharashtra. It’s a very highly cultured and developed state. I mean, things are said in politics. Sometimes things are said which are inappropriate; they should never be said. Levels of political discourse is unfortunately going down in our country. We aren’t condoning it at all and are deeply concerned about this but at the same time, we are concerned with the governor’s role too,” the bench added.
The bench further said that the monsoon session of the assembly was round the corner and passage of bills would have been a “surest test” of majority of the Thackeray-led government in the House. “One aspect of revenue measure and it lacks the majority, they are out. Ultimately, whoever fails and succeed is completely different, but we are concerned with the purity of political process,” observed the court, adding the governor should have also taken into account the fact that the Shinde faction had been a part of the government for three years.
The bench will continue hearing the case on Thursday when the arguments from both sides are expected to conclude.
The constitution bench is seized of a batch of petitions filed by Shinde and Thackeray factions in relation to disqualification proceedings against the MLAs of both camps, election of Rahul Narwekar as new Speaker, recognition of a new party whip for Shiv Sena, and the governor’s directive to Thackeray for proving majority on the floor of the House and subsequently inviting Shinde to form the new government in the state.
While the first two petitions in the Supreme Court were filed by the Shinde faction to stop the deputy speaker (there was no speaker at the time) from disqualifying them as MLAs, the Thackeray camp also approached the apex court later, challenging the actions of the governor in directing the former CM to prove the majority on the floor of the House as well as inviting Shinde to form the government in the state. The Thackeray camp further challenged Narwekar’s decision to recognise Shinde as the leader of Shiv Sena and appointment of a new chief whip of the party.
