Shiv Sena Rift: Supreme Court refuses to restore Uddhav Thackeray government as he resigned without facing a floor test

During the court proceedings of the Shiv Sena Rift case, the Constitution bench said that restoration of the Uddhav Thackeray government was not possible because he resigned without facing a floor test. The bench hearing the case includes Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice PS Narasimha, Justice MR Shah, and Justice Hima Kohli. This case was first heard by the bench on February 14, 2023, and various issues were presented before the Court. Today, the Supreme Court bench gave the long-awaited decision on the Shiv Sena Rift between Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray. In this context, the bench stated that the decision of the speaker to appoint Mr. Gogawale as the whip of the Shiv Sena party was illegal. The bench stated that “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.” Moreover, the bench opined that speaker was aware of the fact that there is an emergency of two factions in the legislative party when he appointed a new whip. It added, “The Speaker did not attempt to identify which of the two persons, Mr. Prabhu or Mr. Gogwale, was the whip authorized by the political party. Speaker must recognize only the whip appointed by the political party.”

In association with the MLA’s disqualification issue, the Supreme Court stated that “This Court cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule in the first instance. There are no extraordinary circumstances in the instant case that warrant the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court to adjudicate disqualification petitions. The Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period.” The Supreme Court bench also determined that Uddhav Thackeray's government cannot be restored, “Status quo ante cannot be restored as Mr. Thackeray did not face the floor test and tendered his resignation. Hence the Governor was justified in administering oath to Mr. Shinde with the support of the largest party BJP.” During the proceedings, the Nabam Rebia case was also questioned that is in conflict with the judgment delivered in the Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu. In the Kihoto Hollohan case, the judgment holds that “there is no reason to doubt the independence and impartiality of the Speaker when adjudicating on proceedings under the tenth Schedule.” The issue of the Nabam Rebia case was, “Whether the issuance of a notice of intention to move a resolution for the removal of a speaker restrains them from adjudicating disqualification petitions under the tenth schedule of constitution?” The bench referred the Nabam Rebia case to a larger seven-judge bench and opined that the issue of the case did not arise in the present proceedings.