Shiv Sena Case| Discontent Within Party Won't Justify Governor Calling For Trust Vote : Supreme Court Says During Hearing

The Constitution bench of Supreme Court, while hearing the matter concerning the rift between the Uddhav Thackeray and the Eknath Shinde factions in Shivsena, discussed the powers and role of the Governor in calling for a trust vote. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli, and Justice PS Narasimha was hearing the arguments of the Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who was representing the the Governor of Maharashtra.Trust Vote not to determine leader of house, but to determine majority : CJI DY ChandrachudAmongst the many important observations of the bench on the role and powers of the Governor, one query which was raised time and again was if the Governor had the power to call for a trust vote in the matter. CJI DY Chandrachud orally remarked–"Suppose there is a policy difference in a party on whatever aspects. Can the governor merely on that say that you must prove your trust vote? The governor must equally be conscious of the fact that his calling for a trust vote may itself be a circumstance which may lead to toppling of a government."SG Mehta argued that the Governor was provided with three things owing to which he called for a floor test. First, the resolution moved by 34 Shinde group MLAs reaffirming leadership of Eknath Shinde; second, the letter by 47 MLAs about violent threats issued by the Uddhav faction against them and; third, the letter by the leader of opposition regarding loss of confidence. To this, CJI Chandrachud said–"The leader of the opposition will always write to the governor. Threat to security is not a ground for calling for trust vote. The only thing which survives is the resolution of the 34 MLAs. Can the governor call for the trust vote? Then you're virtually breaking the party. Looking at it in hindsight, they had lost the mathematical equation. They were not willing to disqualify 39 because it would be to their disadvantage. But now we're on governor's power. Governor should not enter into any area which precipitates the fall of a government".CJI continued by saying that if there is discontent within the party, the dissidents can seek to change the leader, but that can't be a ground to change the government."The governor's responsibility is to ensure that a stable government is there. They(dissidents) have their remedies. They can vote the leader out by saying that the leader is not holding ethos of the party. Can the governor say that I'll ask them to prove now? It's a government which is formed, it's a functional government. Governor may actually precipitate the falling of government. That is very very serious for our democracy. This is irrespective of the numbers. It's clear they lost the numbers."The discussion continued with the Chief Justice opining that the Governor could have waited till the Monsoon session which was going to take place soon. He said–"When you place supplementary demands, that's the surest test, if they have to seek votes of the house. One aspect of a revenue measure and if the government doesn't get the vote- they're out."Regarding the SG's contention concerning "violent threats" made to 47 members to continue supporting the Thackeray faction, CJI Chandrachud termed it as a "law and order situation" and stated that the Governor had already written to the Additional Chief Secretary to provide security to the said members and that is as far as his duty went. However, the SG argued that this was "too simplistic a view to look at it" and said– "The governor is supposed to not be a mute spectator because the threats are not as a law and order situation. The threats are sent with a view to create an artificial majority. Not just threats, real attacks are taking place. This court has held that the governor is duty bound to hold a floor test in such cases. It might aggravate the situation but that's how democracy works. Therefore they say you can inherit leadership but you cannot inherit leadership qualities."However, CJI DY Chandrachud did not seem convinced and remarked–"You can never allow the governor to ask for a trust vote when there is absolutely nothing to shake the majority on the floor of the house. What is the trust vote for? The trust vote is not for determining who is to be your leader in the house. In a house of 288, you have 144. That's the purpose. If there's nothing to indicate that the 144 is disturbed, who will lead those 144 is alien to the governor! It may not have been Uddhav Thackeray. They could've elected someone else. The INC and the Sena could have said we're electing someone else. That is a matter for internal party discipline. That can never be for governor."Discontent within the party no ground to call for trust voteCJI said that there are well-settled precedents on Governor's power to call for a trust vote and none of them support the view that a trust vote can be called for merely because there is a discontent within the party. In the present case, the rebel...

Shiv Sena Case| Discontent Within Party Won't Justify Governor Calling For Trust Vote : Supreme Court Says During Hearing

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Shiv Sena Case| Discontent Within Party Won't Justify Governor Calling For Trust Vote : Supreme Court Says During Hearing

Padmakshi Sharma

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers