On the last day of the hearing in the Shivsena rift case between Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde’s group, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court asked the group of Thackeray as the court could be restored.A CM who didn’t pass the floor test. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha heard the matter.
At the request of Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Thackeray group, to restore the status quo ante, CJI DY Chandrachud asked, “So what do you think we should do? Restore? But you broke up. It is like telling the court that you are recalling a government that has resigned.”
Justice MR Shah added to this line of questioning – “How can the court reinstate a CM who has not even held a floor test?” To this Singhvi replied that he did not try not to reinstate anyone but to restore the previous status quo.
CJI DY Chandrachud then said – “No but it would be logical if you lose confidence on the floor. Because then you are thrown out of power on the basis of a clearly thrown vote of confidence. Look at the intellectual a problem It is not that you were removed from power because of a misnamed vote of confidence in the government. You chose not to face it.
” Singhvi, on the other hand, argued that the trust vote was a result of previous illegal actions by Shinde and the Governor, which was brought before the court. If the trust vote itself is illegal, then CM Singhvi’s is not. – participation does not dilute its illegality CJI DY Chandrachud sought clarification said – “You honestly accept that you resigned because the vote of confidence went against you.
” Singhvi also referred to the SR Bommai case, saying that there the court was ready to restore governments , which the Governor found to be illegally dissolved but refrained from doing so because the term of the assembly ended and new elections took place. In this case, there is no such scenario because the government continues, he added.
Love Marriage Act | जानिए कैसे Live In Relationships में मिलेगी कानूनी मदद|
Earlier, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who also appeared for Uddhav, cited the judgment in SR Bommai Vs. Union of India and argued that the court restored the previous status quo in this. He also cited the example of restoration of status quo ante in the case of Arunachal Pradesh (2016) and Uttrakhand Assembly in this context.
Concluding his arguments, Sibal said- “The history of this court is a history of celebrating constitutional values. There have been cases like ADM Jabalpur which have gone against this court over the years. This is an equally important case. This is a moment in the history of this Court when the future of democracy will be determined. I am absolutely certain that without the intervention of this court our democracy will be in danger, because no government will be allowed to survive. In this hope I make this request to your lordships to allow and set aside this petition. Governor’s order.”
सीनियर एडवोकेट बनना होगा आसान, गुजरात से हुई पहल |
