India / Shiv sena supreme court hearing uddhav thackeray vs eknath shinde

New Delhi. In the Shiv Sena controversy, the Supreme Court on Wednesday raised big questions on the Governor of Maharashtra and said that they are worried about the Governor's role in this matter. A five-judge constitution bench said, "The governor should not enter the area where his action would lead to a specific result." The question is, can the governor topple the government just because an MLA has said that there is a threat to his life and property?

The top court said, 'Was there a constitutional crisis in calling the trust vote? The governor cannot voluntarily be an ally in bringing down the government. This is a sad picture in a democracy. Threat to security cannot be the basis of a trust vote. Chief Justice (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud told the governor that he should not have called the trust vote like this. The CJI said, 'He should have asked himself what happened after three years of happy marriage? How did the governor guess what was going to happen next?

Very little difference between divided and rival faction

Earlier, the Supreme Court on Tuesday told Maharashtra's ruling Eknath Shinde faction that the difference between a divided and rival faction is very thin and it is very easy for the speaker to say whether it is a matter of division or not, but the question is whether What should be the framework for the Presiding Officer to take a prima facie view. Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the Shinde group, submitted before a five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud that the then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari had approved the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA). It did nothing wrong by calling the government to prove its majority on the floor of the House last year.

Senior advocate Niraj Kishan Kaul, representing the Shinde group, said that in a 1994 judgement, a nine-judge constitution bench of the apex court had held that floor test is the litmus test of democracy and the chief minister cannot abstain from it. He emphasized that if the Chief Minister shies away from the responsibility of facing the floor test, it means that he does not have the majority of the House.

Kaul argued before the bench - also comprising Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha - that it is a settled law that the Speaker of the House has to prima facie see whether there is a split in a political party And this has to be decided on the basis of the material placed before him and he cannot ask continuously.