Uddhav Thackeray vs Eknath Shinde : Live Updates From Supreme Court | Shiv Sena Case Hearing [February 22]

Sibal: This revives the concept of split even though para 3 has been deleted. It gives it legitimacy.

Sibal: And in what capacity did the governor grant him an audience? Where did he (Eknath Shinde) get the authority from? Not from Uddhav Thackeray - the Prakshpramukha.

Sibal: The governor was from Shivsena but dissociated. He had no locus. Suppose Shivsena was to form a coalition with BJP, who would have gone to the governor? The leader, the Prakshpramukha- Uddhav Thackeray. In which capacity was Shinde before the governor?

Sibal: It happened in Arunachal. We have seen, no disrespect to the office, but we have seen governors performing a more proactive role as institutions within the states. 

Sibal: Here there is a very big conundrum. There's the 27th order, 29th order. Even the governor could have stopped it. He chose not to.

Sibal: Democracy only thrives when the institutions upholds the constitution. 

Sibal: Why would the governor administer the oath except if he himself knows that the elected government will be toppled? That's a very serious matter. 

Sibal: He could have said that please first file your reply on 12th July, see the outcome of those proceedings, and if there is no taint, I'll administer your oath. Institutional morality demands he follows that path.

Sibal: When there's already an elected government in place and there is an alleged taint of a certain faction, whether the governor can exercise discretion in a manner which would topple the government?

Sibal: He will ask the question, which party do you belong to? I'm sure he'll know that before he asks the question. So he knows that Shivsena is not before him. So what is his discretion in administering the oath to Shinde?