राजनीति

Unanimous SC verdicts today in Shiv Sena case, Delhi vs Centre power tussle

The Supreme Court will on Thursday pronounce its much-awaited verdicts in two crucial matters: in Maharashtra , and the dispute between the Centre and Delhi government over control of administrative services in the national capital.

The matters were heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murai, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha.

Thursday’s cause list, which is the list of business for the day, shows that both judgments are unanimous and are by the CJI.

The five-judge Bench had reserved its judgment in the govt vs Centre matter on January 18 and the Maharashtra matter on March 16 this year.

Hearing petitions by the Uddhav Thackeray and groups following the rift in the Sena and subsequent fall of the MVA government, the SC Bench had wondered how it can reinstate the Thackeray government even if it finds the Governor’s action in calling for a trust vote illegal, given that the former chief minister had resigned without facing the floor test — “accepting” that he was in a minority.

It is like the court being told to put back a government, which had acknowledged that it is in a minority, the Bench had said.

The court also questioned the Governor’s role and said he must have asked himself what had suddenly happened that after enjoying the fruits of power for three years, a section of the MLAs decided to part ways with the MVA government.

On the Governor asking Thackeray to face a trust vote, the court wondered “why not” instead “ask whoever wants to move a no-confidence motion to do so. Why should a government which has been formed and in respect of which there was absolutely no disquiet earlier be asked to suddenly face a trust vote?”

The Thackeray faction also urged the court to refer to a larger bench, its 2016 judgment in the Nabam Rebia case where it was held the Speaker of a House cannot decide a disqualification petition filed under the anti-defection law while a notice under Article 179(c) for the Speaker’s removal is pending.

The CJI-led bench, however, said the prayer cannot be considered in the abstract and will have to be determined along with the facts of the petitions filed in the wake of the political crisis which led to the fall of the MVA government.

During the hearing of the Delhi government versus Centre matter, the court had questioned the need for having an elected government in Delhi. It said this after the Centre asserted the Union Territories are an extension of the Union, which wants to administer them.

A two-judge bench of the court had in February 2019 delivered a split verdict on the powers of the Delhi government and centre vis a vis administrative services in the national capital. It then went to a three-judge bench, which in May 2022, referred the question to a constitution bench.

Another five-judge constitution bench of the court had in a 2018 judgment unanimously held that the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is bound by the aid and advice of the elected government, and both needed to work harmoniously with each other.

The three-judge bench, while referring the matter to a constitution bench last year, said the issue of control over services was not dealt with by the 2018 constitution bench, which elaborately tackled all legal questions on the powers of the Centre and the Delhi government.