Uddhav Thackeray vs Eknath Shinde : Live Updates From Supreme Court In Shiv Sena Case [Feb 28]

Kaul: Who is the whip? They say your whip is only appointed by the legislature party. We say no, that is wrong. How can the Supreme Court at all decide on the issue and take a call on the matter, just because you say we're per se disqualified.

Kaul: Who will decide this- whether there is a split in a political party? A legislature party is integral and organically connected to the political party.

Kaul: Rana is completely misread. It was in the context of Supreme Court saying that where the speaker decides the disqualification issue, he sees the events as on that day.

Kaul: What was the governor expected to do? 7 independent say we have lost confidence, 34 MLAs say we have no faith in the ministry any longer. Bommai said that by "any means necessary" governor has to gather info.

Kaul: Several MLAs have withdrawn support from ministry, within the ministry the leader of opposition says he has no faith, a large section of legislative party do not support ministry and govt. Given these facts, I think it prudent to ask CM Thackeray to prove his majority

Kaul: In this case, I am not suggesting that when we filed our 32 Nabam was not our contention. Nabam was important, but so was the imminent dangers to the life of MLAs. That's why we approached the court.

Kaul: Your lordships held in Bommai and Shivraj Chauhan that it is the duty of the governor to have a floor test.

Kaul: These submissions are in the teeth of nine judges of this court in Bommai. We're told that this matter is for maintaining constitutional propriety. But the arguments raised are disruptive of constitutional scheme as established in Bommai.

Kaul: You asked what should a governor do in a case where after the government is formed there is a problem with floor test? Answer given was that floor test ought not happen, only a no confidence motion could move.

Kaul: Third, because it was your Lordships order, only your Lordships can correct it and restore status quo ante. This suffers from a basic issue. Your lordships have held that we will not act as first court of instance.