Governor 'Erred' But 'Thackeray Did Not Face Floor Test': Supreme Court Top Quotes On Sena Vs Sena

Maharashtra Sena VS Sena Verdict: The Supreme Court said the Governor 'erred' in relying on the resolution of a faction of Sena MLAs to conclude that Thackeray had lost support of majority of MLAs.

The Eknath Shinde-led coalition government will stay in Maharashtra as the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that Uddhav Thackeray could not be restored as Chief Minister as he resigned before the floor test. A five-judge bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha refused to decide on the disqualification of Shinde and 15 other MLAs for revolting against then undivided Shiv Sena leadership in June last year.

Last year, Shinde and 39 MLAs rebelled against the undivided Sena party leadership, which eventually resulted in the collapse of the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government and the party's split.

Shinde was sworn in as CM on June 30, a day after Uddhav Thackeray quit the post. BJP’s Devendra Fadnavis was sworn in as the deputy CM. On February 17 this year, the Election Commission (EC) had recognised the Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena based on the majority in the Maharashtra Assembly.

Maharashtra Political Crisis: What The Supreme Court Said

• The Supreme Court said the Governor's decision to call Eknath Shinde to be sworn in as Chief Minister was correct. "Status quo ante cannot be restored as Thackeray did not face the floor test and tendered his resignation. Hence, the Governor was justified in administering oath to Shinde with the support of the largest party BJP," the court said.


• However, the top court said the Governor "erred in relying on the resolution of a faction of MLAs of Shiv Sena to conclude that Thackeray had lost support of the majority of MLAs".


• The top court said, "Nothing in any of the communications relied on by the Governor indicated that the dissatisfied MLAs wanted to withdraw support to the government. The security concerns expressed by MLAs have no bearing on the support of the government. This was an extraneous consideration on which the governor placed reliance on."


• The CJI-led bench made it clear that neither the Constitution nor the law empower the Governor to enter the political arena and play a role either in inter-party or intra-party disputes. 


• "Even if it is assumed that MLAs wanted to leave the government, it was only dissatisfaction portrayed. There is a difference between a party not supporting government and members of some political party being unhappy," the court said.


• The Supreme Court also said the Speaker's decision to appoint Gogawale (backed by the Shinde group) as the whip of the Shiv Sena party was illegal.


• "To hold that it is the legislative party which appoints the whip will mean severance of the umbilical chord with the political party. It means group of MLAs can disconnect from the political party. Whip appointed political party is crucial for tenth schedule," the bench stated.


• The apex court also referred to a larger bench the issue relating to Speaker's powers as laid down in the 2016 judgment in Nabam Rebia case. The court said that the Nabam Rebia judgment did not decide on whether a Speaker against whom a disqualification notice was pending could decide on disqualification petitions against MLAs.