NEW DELHI: A five-judge Supreme Court bench on Thursday raised the question as to how the court can reinstate the Uddhav Thackeray government in Maharashtra when the chief minister had put in his papers even before facing the floor test, after the faction led by him pitched for setting aside the Governor’s June 2022 order to the CM to take the floor test.
The apex court reserved its order after a nine-day hearing on the Maharashtra political imbroglio that saw the formation of a new Sena-BJP govt headed by Eknath Shinde. Senior advocate AM Singhvi urged the bench to restore the status quo that had existed on June 27, 2022, before the governor directed former CM Uddhav Thackeray to face the floor test.
Justice MR Shah then questioned Thackeray’s decision not to face the trust vote. “How can the court reinstate the CM who did not even face the floor test?” CJI DY Chandrachud said that Thackeray was not ousted from power as a result of a trust vote which was wrongly summoned by the Governor but because he chose not to face it. “No, but that would’ve been a logical thing to do provided that you had lost the trust on the floor,” said the CJI.
“Look at the intellectual conundrum. It’s not that you’ve been ousted from power as a result of the trust vote which was wrongly summoned by the government. You chose not to face it. You’re frankly accepting the fact that you resigned because the trust vote was going to go against you,” the CJI said.
ALSO READ| Battle of the Senas: Shinde's overkill vs Uddhav's comeback bid on the cards
Senior advocate AM Singhvi also submitted that the CM’s subsequent resignation on June 29 would not have had any relevance in a reversal of the governor’s illegal action of asking Thackeray to face the floor test. “It cannot be argued that the leader is appointed by the legislature party. The Governor has no role at all. It’s an intra-party issue,” Singhvi said. Also questioning the Governor’s June 28 action, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the governor did not have any authority to look at the intra-party dispute.
He said, “Neither the Governor nor this court can impinge upon the functions of a Speaker. The governor can only deal with the legislative party. He cannot pick up Eknath Shinde and say now you become the CM.”
A political crisis had erupted in Maharashtra after an open revolt in the Shiv Sena, and on June 29, 2022, the apex court refused to stay the Maharashtra governor’s direction to the 31-month-old MVA government to take a floor test in the assembly to prove its majority. Sensing impending defeat, Uddhav Thackeray had resigned, paving the way for Eknath Shinde to become the chief minister.
Also in top court
‘Inclined to modify verdict on ESZ’
While considering a batch of pleas seeking a relaxation of its directive to declare a one km eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) around protected forests, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries, the apex court remarked that it was prima facie inclined to modify its verdict. said, “Prima facie, we are inclined to allow this modification application,” the court said.
Doctors storing drugs not an offence
SC has observed that a doctor storing small quantities of medicines will not amount to an offence of unauthorised stocking of medicines under Section 18(c) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940. A division bench said when a small quantity of medicine has been found in the premises of a registered medical practitioner, it would not amount to selling medicines across the counter.