The Supreme Court issued a unanimous judgment on various issues related to the split in a political party in Maharashtra in June 2022.

Key Takeaways

Here are the key takeaways from the verdict:

(1) Disqualification

• MLA disqualifications upheld: The Supreme Court did not interfere with the proceedings related to the disqualification of 16 MLAs (who had gone to Dehradun) including Chief Minister.
• Onus on Speaker: The court stated that the issue of disqualification should be decided by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly as per established procedures in law.

(2) Consideration of Party Constitution

• Political party constitution: The court emphasized that while deciding disqualification pleas, the Speaker must consider the constitution of the political party, which was submitted to the Election Commission (EC) with the consent of both factions.
• Split occurred later: The court clarified that the “split” in the party would no longer be a defense available to MLAs facing disqualification.

(3) Governor’s Role

• Issue over floor test circumstances: The court criticized the then Governor for calling a floor test without sufficient objective material to show that the incumbent government had lost the confidence of the House.
• Must remain politically neutral: The court stated that the Governor should exercise their power within the limits of the law and should not enter the political arena nor interfere in intra-party disputes.

(4) Former CM Resignation

• Should have faced floor test: The court mentioned that erstwhile CM of tripartite government, who led one of the factions, had resigned and did not face the floor test.
• Re-instation was possible: The court held that it could not quash a resignation submitted voluntarily, but if ex-CM had refrained from resigning, the court could have considered a remedy to reinstate his government.

(5) Illegal Appointment of Whip

• The court deemed the appointment of the whip by the split-led faction to be illegal.
• The Speaker should have conducted an independent inquiry to verify the decision of the political party regarding the appointment of the whip.

(6) Distinction between Legislature Party and Political Party

• The court clarified that the legislature party and the political party cannot be conflated.
• The court stated that a political party must be registered with the Election Commission, while the legislature party has independent existence to provide defense to legislators’ actions within the political party.

(7) Concurrent Jurisdiction of Speaker and EC

• The court rejected the contention that the Election Commission was barred from deciding on the party symbol dispute until the Speaker decided the disqualification pleas.
• The court stated that both the Speaker and the EC can adjudicate issues concurrently.

(8) Others

• Nabam Rebia Case, 2016: Additionally, the court referred certain issues related to its judgment in the Nabam Rebia Case to a larger Bench.
• Restrictions on the ousted Speaker: This included the restriction of the Speaker’s powers in issuing disqualification notices to MLAs in the presence of a notice for the Speaker’s removal.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024 | Schedule your FREE session and get the Prelims prep Toolkit!

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now