Shiv Sena Split: Governors Shouldn't Precipitate Fall of a Govt, Says SC

The Supreme Court began hearing the final arguments in the high-profile split in the Shiv Sena in June 2022.

(Photo: Altered by The Quint)

Hearing final arguments in the case of the split in the Shiv Sena, which led to the subsequent fall of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government, the Supreme Court on Wednesday, 15 March, said that the "governors should not enter into areas which precipitates the fall of a government."

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, comprising of Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha, heard the arguments by Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta appearing for the Maharashtra governor and senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the Uddhav Thackeray faction.

In June 2022, at least 34 MLAs of the Shiv Sena, led by now chief minister Eknath Shinde, rebelled against party chief Thackeray. Following the split, then Maharashtra governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari invited Thackeray to prove majority in a floor test. Thackeray had resigned as the chief minister a day before the test.

Here are the key observations by CJI Chandrachud:

CJI Chandrachud Questions the Basis for Floor Test

CJI Chandrachud observed that the actions of the governors can lead to the falling of governments, which is a "serious issue for our democracy," LiveLaw reported.

He further said that the governor must be conscious of the fact that his calling for a trust vote may itself be a circumstance leading to toppling of a government.

"...people start ditching a government. Then, the governors are willing allies saying hold trust votes. So you give sanctity to this," Chandrachud said, as quoted by LiveLaw.

"He (governor) can't be oblivious to the fact that in a three-party coalition, the dissent has taken place in one party of the three. The other two are steadfast in the coalition. They are not by any means sidekicks," CJI added.

He further said that dissatisfaction within a party and loss of majority of a government are necessarily indicative of each other.

SG Weaponises Raut's Comments

SG Mehta used MP Sanjay Raut's alleged threats to the rebel MLAs as the basis of his arguments, saying that those could not have been ignored by Koshyari.

Following the spilt, Raut had said that the safety of the rebel MLAs cannot be ensured once they return to Mumbai.

"What was seen was not just an inappropriate statement which the governor could have ignored. It was a threat that you will be brought dead and sent to postmortem," Mehta argued, as quoted by LiveLaw.

Mehta further argued that if a situation is created to bring pressure on the legislative process, "then it's not just a law and order situation." He said that the threats by Raut were to create "an artificial majority."

"The governor in my submission would have jurisdiction once he has material. And what is that material? It need not be a letter also. Suppose it's in public media – it cannot be disputed," Mehta said.

Sibal Questions Powers of Rebels

Advocate Sibal argued that the 34 rebel MLAs had maid claims and issued whips while sitting in Assam, which cannot be accepted by the legislature.

"MLAs sitting in Assam in the lap of the BJP will appoint Gogawale as a whip and then come to the court and say look we already appointed the whip. Under what power?" Sibal asked.

He further argued that 34 MLAs cannot claim that they are the whole party and enter a coalition.

"We're back to 'Aaya Ram Gaya Ram'. Why? Because you say now your political affiliation doesn't matter, what matters is numbers. Democracy isn't about just numbers," he said, as quoted by LiveLaw.

The hearing remained inconclusive on Thursday and will continue on Friday.

(With inputs from LiveLaw.)