Shiv Sena Case | How Can Court Reinstate A CM Who Did Not Face Floor Test? Supreme Court Asks Uddhav Thackeray Side
On the final day of the hearings in matter pertaining to the rift in Shivsena party between the Uddhav Thackeray and the Eknath Shinde faction, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court enquired from the Thackeray faction how the Court could reinstate a Chief Minister who had not faced the floor test.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Justice...
On the final day of the hearings in matter pertaining to the rift in Shivsena party between the Uddhav Thackeray and the Eknath Shinde faction, the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court enquired from the Thackeray faction how the Court could reinstate a Chief Minister who had not faced the floor test.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha was hearing the matter.
On the request of Dr AM Singhvi, appearing for the Thackeray faction, to restore the status quo ante, CJI DY Chandrachud asked-
"So according to you we do what? Reinstate? But you resigned. That's like the court being told that you reinstate a government which has resigned."
Justice MR Shah added to this line of questioning-
"How can the court reinstate the CM who did not even face the floor test?"
To this, Singhvi responded that he was not seeking to reinstate anyone but to restore the status quo ante.
CJI DY Chandrachud then said-
"No, but that would've been a logical thing to do provided that you had lost the trust on floor. Because then, clearly you've been ousted from power based on trust vote which is set aside. Look at the intellectual conundrum. It's not that you've been ousted from power as a result of trust vote which was wrongly summoned by government. You chose not to face it."
However, Singhvi submitted that the trust vote was a consequence of prior illegal acts of the Shinde side and the Governor, which were sub judice before the Court. When the trust vote per se is illegal, the Singhvi CM's lack of participation would not dilute its illegality.
CJI DY Chandrachud, seeking for clarification said-
"You're frankly accepting the fact that you resigned because the trust vote was going to go against you."
Singhvi also referred to the SR Bommai case to say that there, the Court was ready to restore the governments which were found to have been illegally dissolved by the governor but refrained from doing so in view of the fact that the term of the assembly got over and fresh elections took place. However, in the present case, such a scenario is absent as the government is continuing, he added.
Earlier, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, also appearing for the Uddhav side, had cited the judgement in SR Bommai v Union of India, and stated that the court restored status quo ante in it. He also cited the example of restoration of status quo ante in the case of Arunachal Pradesh assembly(2016) and Uttrakhand assembly in this context.
While concluding his arguments, Sibal said-
"The history of this court is the history of celebration of values of Constitution. There have been occassions like ADM Jabalpur which is in dissonance with what this court has done over years. This is an equally significant case. It's a moment in the history of this court where the future of democracy will be determined. I am absolutely certain that without the intervention of this court, we will, our democracy will be in danger because no government will be allowed to survive.It is with that hope that I make this plea to your lordships to allow this petition and set aside the order of the Governor."
The bench reserved judgment after the hearing.
Live updates posted from the hearing can be read here.