The Supreme Court’s verdict on the political imbroglio in Maharashtra last year serves as an example of a judgment that emphasizes high principles but fails to provide relief to those impacted by the breach of constitutional norms. While it condemns the manner in which regime change was achieved, it does not alter the existing status quo. A Constitution Bench has ruled that Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari had no valid reason to doubt the majority of the then Chief Minister, Uddhav Thackeray, yet he had still asked for a floor test based on extraneous factors. However, as Mr. Thackeray had resigned without facing the floor test, the Court stated that it was unable to reinstate his government. Although the Court cannot invalidate a voluntary resignation, it overlooks the fact that his resignation was coerced by circumstances in which the Court played a role.
On the eve of the floor test, a Supreme Court Bench allowed it to proceed. Previously, through an interim order, the Court had extended the time for the rebel Shiv Sena MLAs, led by Eknath Shinde, to respond to applications seeking their disqualification for defection. This order provided ample time for the dissidents, along with the BJP, to engage in political maneuvers without the risk of disqualification from the House. In essence, these two court orders facilitated the toppling of the government, a fact that the final verdict fails to acknowledge.
The Thackeray faction lost in the numbers game, a game in which time is crucial for both ruling parties that seek to protect their members and dissidents who aim to secure enough defectors. Besides cautioning Governors against intervening in the internal problems of a ruling party as a potential loss of majority, the Court also clarified that whips and party leaders in the House should be appointed by the political party, not the legislature party. This decision has implications for determining whose whip is binding on legislators in the event of a party splitting into factions. The Court has also determined that the judgment in the Nabam Rebia case (2016), which held that a Speaker 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. This reconsideration is necessary because legislators facing disqualification should not be allowed to exploit frivolous petitions to remove the Speaker in order to evade their own disqualification.
Mr. Thackeray can now claim a moral victory, but in the realm of political coalitions, a legislative majority is considered more important than morality. The Supreme Court’s verdict, while highlighting the flaws in the manner of regime change and providing guidance on issues like appointments of whips and disqualification matters, ultimately fails to address the consequences suffered by those impacted by the breach of constitutional norms. It is a reminder that legal judgments, even when grounded in high principles, do not always provide the necessary relief to rectify the injustices caused by political developments.