Governor as a pivot creates discontent in the party

The Supreme Court stated on 15 march, Wednesday that a disagreement over policy between all MLAs within a ruling party cannot serve as a sufficient basis for a governor to order a floor test in the Assembly. The court made strong observations regarding the role played by then-Gov—Bhagat Singh Koshyari in the political crisis in Maharashtra in 2022. That will be a "sad spectacle for democracy," according to a five-judge constitution bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, and a state governor cannot use his position to achieve a specific outcome. Different viewpoints among MLAs in the same party may arise on a variety of issues, such as the payment of development funds or a departure from the party's tenets, but is it sufficient justification for the governor to order the floor test? The governor cannot use his position to achieve a certain outcome. The bench declared that calling for a trust vote would result in the overthrow of the elected administration. Koshyari had requested in June 2022 that the then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray participate in a floor test to demonstrate his majority in the Legislature. Thackeray did, however, resign from his position, and Eknath Shinde was subsequently sworn in as the new chief minister. The observations by the bench came after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who represented Koshiyari, had recounted the events, according to PTI. Mehta said that the governor had before him several documents, along with a letter signed by 34 Shiv Sena MLAs, a letter from Self-governing lawmakers withdrawing support for the Uddhav Thackeray government, and another from the opposition leader that prompted him to order a trust vote. . According to PTI, the bench stated that a letter from the opposition leader is irrelevant in this case because he will continue to write that the government has lost its majority or that MLAs are dissatisfied. It also stated that the letter from MLAs stating that there had been a threat to their security was irrelevant in this case. Only one point is that a resolution passed by 34 MLAs stated that there was widespread dissatisfaction among party cadres and legislators.Is this enough to warrant a trust vote? In retrospect, we can say that Uddhav Thackeray miscalculated the mathematical equation. The Shiv Sena rebel MLAs should have been asked why they wanted to leave the coalition after a three-year "happy marriage," the bench, comprised of Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, observed. “You lived together for three years before deciding to get divorced”. In another regime, the rebel MLAs became ministers. The Shinde faction informed the former on March 2 that claims relating to the Maharashtra political crisis fell within the purview of politics and that the courts cannot be requested to decide the matter. As a result, the court was hearing a case. Since then, the Shiv Sena's factions led by Thackeray and Eknath have been at odds with one another.

0 comments

Leave a comment