_page-0001.jpg)
What's the article about?
- It talks about the recent Supreme Court judgement on the Maharashtra political crisis.
Relevance:
- GS2: Parliament and State Legislatures; Salient Features of the Representation of People’s Act; Appointment to various Constitutional Posts, Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies;
- Essay;
- Prelims
Context:
- The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court pronounced the verdict on the Maharashtra political crisis recently.
Observation of the Supreme Court:
- The SC observed that the Governor had no objective material on the basis of which he could doubt the confidence of the incumbent government. The court further said that the Floor test cannot be used as a means to settle differences within a political party.
- The SC also clarified that the discretion to call for a floor test is not an unfettered discretion of the Governor.
- Besides cautioning Governors against treating internal problems of a ruling party as a possible loss of majority, the Court has also clarified that whips and leaders of the party in the House ought to be appointed by the political party, and not the legislature party.
- This has a bearing on whose whip is binding on legislators in the event of a party splitting into two factions.
- It has also decided that the judgment in Nabam Rebia (2016), holding that a Speaker who is facing a notice for removal from office should not adjudicate a disqualification matter under the anti-defection law, should be reconsidered by a larger Bench.
|
Anti-Defection Law
|
Analysis:
- It often happens in litigation around political developments that judgments underscore high principles, but extend no relief to those impacted by breach of constitutional norms.
- The Supreme Court verdict on the political imbroglio in Maharashtra last year is one such.
- It is an indictment of the manner in which regime change was achieved, but it does not alter the status quo.
- A Constitution Bench has ruled that the Governor had no objective material to doubt the majority of the then Chief Minister but had nevertheless asked him to take a floor test, based on extraneous factors.
- As then CM had resigned without facing the floor test, the Court said it was unable to restore his government.
- It is true that it cannot quash a voluntary resignation.
Way Forward:
- This judgement is welcome, as legislators who have incurred disqualification should not be allowed to use a frivolous petition to remove the Speaker to ward off their own disqualification.
- Opposition can now claim a moral victory, but in the domain of political coalitions, a legislative majority is seen as more important than morality.
