CJI : Nothing in any of the communications relied on by the Governor indicated that the dissatisfied MLAs wanted to withdraw support to the Government.
CJI : 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.
CJI : Floor test cannot be used to resolve internal party disputes.
CJI : Even if it is assumed that the MLAs wanted to exit the govt, they constituted only a faction.
Supreme Court holds that the Governor had no objective material to doubt the confidence of the MVA govt and call for a floor test. The resolution relied on by the Govt did not indicate that MLAs wanted to withdraw support.
CJI : The assembly was not in session when Mr.Fadnavis wrote to the Govt. The opposition parties did not issue any no-confidence motion. The Governor had no objective material to doubt the confidence of the Govt.
CJI : If the Speaker and the Govt circumvents the no-confidence motion, the Governor will be justified in calling for a floor test without the aid and advise of the council of ministers.
CJI : The defence must be found within the tenth schedule as it currently stands.
CJI : No faction or a group can argue that they constitute the original party in defence of the disqualification proceedings. The defence of split is no longer available under the tenth schedule.
CJI : ECI can decide under the symbols order despite the pendency of proceedings before Speaker.
"to hold that the ECI is barred from deciding symbols order will be like staying proceedings indefinitely.."