Maharashtra ex-governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari’s decision ‘unjustified’ but cannot restore Uddhav government: SC

The bench, which also comprised Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murai, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha, ruled on petitions filed by the Thackeray and Shinde camps and said that “the governor had no objective material before him on the basis of which he could conclude that the government did not enjoy confidence….”. The court said that communication relied upon by the governor did not contain any indication that the MLAs wished to exit the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government. “The communication expressing discontent on the part of some MLAs is not sufficient for the governor to call for a floor test,” it added.

The ruling said that “once a government is democratically elected in accordance with the law, there is a presumption that it enjoys the confidence of the House. There must exist some objective material to dislodge this presumption”.

“The MLAs did not express their desire to withdraw support from the MVA government in the resolution dated June 21, 2022,” the Supreme Court said, adding, “Even if it is implied that the MLAs intended to exit from the government, they only constituted a faction of the Shiv Sena Legislature Party and were at most expressing their dissatisfaction with the course of action adopted by their political party.”

The court said that a floor test cannot be used as a medium to resolve internal party disputes or intra-party disputes. Dissent and disagreement within a political party must be resolved in accordance with the remedies under the party constitution or through any other methods that the party chooses to opt for, it added.

The Supreme Court said there is a marked difference between a party not supporting a government and individuals within a party expressing their discontent with the party leadership and functioning.

“The governor is the titular head of the state government. It’s a constitutional functionary who derives his authority from the Constitution. This being the case the governor must be cognisant of the constitutional bounds of the power vested in him. He cannot exercise a power that is not conferred on him by the Constitution or a law made under it,” the court ruled.

It added, “Neither the Constitution nor the laws made by the Parliament provide for a mechanism by which disputes among members of a political party can be settled. This certainly does not empower the governor to enter the political arena and play a role, however minute, either in inter-party disputes or intra-party disputes. It follows from this that the governor did not act upon an inference that he has drawn that a section of the Shiv Sena wish to withdraw their support to the government on the floor of the House.”

The court pointed out that the governor had relied on the letter written by then leader of Opposition Devendra Fadnavis and seven Independent MLAs calling upon him to direct Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House and said Fadnavis as well as the MLAs “could well have moved a motion of no-confidence. Nothing prevented them from doing so”.

It said that “a request by some MLAs for a direction to the Chief Minister to prove his majority does not taken alone amount to a relevant and germane reason to call for a floor test. There must be some objective material in addition to a mere request to call for a floor test. In the present case, the governor did not have any objective material before him to indicate that the incumbent government had lost the confidence of the House and that he should call for a floor test. Hence the exercise of discretion by the governor in this case was not in accordance with law”.

The Supreme Court also referred to a larger bench its 2016 judgment in the Nabam Rebia case where it was held the Speaker of a House cannot decide a disqualification petition filed under the anti-defection law while a notice for the Speaker’s removal is pending.