New Delhi: In a late night order Wednesday, the Supreme Court refused to stay Thursday’s trust vote in the Maharashtra assembly for the state’s Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government to prove its majority. The MVA is a coalition of the Shiv Sena, the Nationalist Congress Party and the Congress.
The trust vote was order by Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari Wednesday, after a section of Shiv Sena MLAs — led by minister Eknath Shinde — broke away from the party and rebelled against the government earlier this month, leading to the MVA’s reduced strength in assembly.
The Shiv Sena approached the SC against the Governor’s order, citing an apex court order that gave the rebels time till 12 July to respond to a notice issued by the deputy speaker of the state assembly on the cancellation of their membership.
However, the vacation bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice J.B. Pardiwala passed an order at 9pm Wednesday, allowing the trust vote to be held as scheduled.
The bench said it found “no ground” to stay the special session of the Maharashtra Vidhan Sabha, conducted for the trust vote, but added that the result of the trust vote will be subject to the outcome of several writ petitions pending before it.
“We don’t think the matter will become infructuous. Suppose if we find later that floor test was conducted without authority, we can annul it. It is not an irreversible situation,” the bench held.
Following the SC ruling, CM Uddhav Thackeray resigned as CM, knowing well that defeat in the trust vote was inevitable.
ThePrint looks at the arguments made in favour of and against Thursday’s trust vote and what led the SC to allow it.
Also read: Maharashtra: BJP prepares to stake claim to govt, hopes to wrap up nitty-gritty in 2 days
Contentions before the Bench
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Shiv Sena whip Sunil Prabhu, contended that unless the issue of disqualification of rebel MLAs is decided, the trust vote scheduled for Thursday could not be held.
“The rebel MLAs cannot be said to represent the will of the people,” he argued.
In response, senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for rebel MLA Eknath Shinde argued that the pendency of disqualification proceedings was no ground to stay the trust vote proceedings since they are “distinct fields”.
Kaul argued that it was a well-settled proposition in law that a floor test (in which an incumbent CM has to prove his majority among all members present and voting) should not be delayed and the mere pendency of proceedings relating to disqualification was no ground to thwart the process.
“Where does the natural dance of democracy take place? At the floor of the house. I have seldom seen a party so afraid to conduct a floor test,” Kaul added.
Meanwhile, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Governor, argued that the Governor “in totality” was satisfied that a floor test was necessary.
Drawing from previous instances
This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has had to take a call on a trust vote or floor test.
In April 2020, the SC had explored the issue in depth while examining a similar incident in Madhya Pradesh.
It had then said that the Governor was empowered to direct an incumbent CM to hold a floor test to demonstrate “their (the members’) trust in the Government”. The apex court had clarified that while such floor tests are commonly held after being voted to power, the Governor had the power to direct floor tests of an incumbent council.
Similarly, in 2019 the Supreme Court while examining Shiv Sena’s petition for a floor test against the then BJP government in Maharashtra, had directed the Governor to hold the floor test and set a “deadline” for the same.
Test to be considered at ‘earliest’
Interestingly, while deciding the Shiv Sena petition, the court had said that it was essential that the test is conducted at the earliest to avoid horse trading.
“In a situation wherein, if the floor test is delayed, there is a possibility of horse trading, it becomes incumbent upon the court to act to protect democratic values. An immediate floor test, in such a case, might be the most effective mechanism to do so,” the court had observed.
Dismissing contentions that the SC did not have the power to direct such tests, the top court had referred to earlier orders where a trust vote was similarly conducted.
For instance, in 1998, the SC had ordered the Uttar Pradesh assembly to be summoned for a composite floor test, because there were two people staking claim to the post of chief minister.
In several instances, the court has also appointed observers to ensure neutrality of the process and even ordered such votes to be videographed.
It has observed that the court is the “sentinel qui vive” (watchful guardian) of the Constitution and was under an obligation to ensure that such tests are conducted in a free and fair manner.
Members may skip vote
However, it has been noted that members cannot be compelled to attend such votes, when such a floor test is being ordered. For example, while considering a Karnataka assembly case of 2019, the court had given 15 rebel MLAs an option to skip the trust vote.
“The imperative necessity, at this stage, is to maintain the constitutional balance and the conflicting and competing rights that have been canvassed before us,” the court had then said.
In the Madhya Pradesh case, the court had noted that a trust vote need not be deferred because of pendency of disqualification proceedings against members.
Terming it the “surest method” of ascertaining the will of the house, it had said that disqualification and trust votes operate in completely different realms.
Akshat Jain is a student of the National Law University, Delhi, and an intern with ThePrint
(Edited by Poulomi Banerjee)
Also read: How Devendra Fadnavis put inglorious 2019 exit behind him, made good on ‘Me punha yein’ promise