New Delhi: The constitution bench of the Supreme Court has not been able to reach any conclusion regarding the Shiv Sena dispute in Maharashtra. While giving its verdict on this issue on Thursday, the constitution bench has sent it to a larger bench for hearing. Now a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court will hear on this issue. The bench said that the Speaker should take a decision on the disqualification of the MLAs. We will not take this decision nor can we restore the old status quo.
The constitution bench has also made sharp remarks while sending the matter to a larger bench. The court said that the speaker was aware of the formation of two factions. The decision of the speaker to make Bharat Gogawale the chief whip was wrong. The speaker should have investigated and taken a decision.
The court said that the solution of internal differences is not possible through floor test. The governor should have taken advice before conducting the floor test. The Governor should not interfere in the discord of the party. The claim of the ‘Real Shiv Sena’ is not correct. The Election Commission cannot be stopped from issuing the symbol. The basis of internal discord is not enough for trust vote.
Questioning the decision of the Governor, the Supreme Court said that the decision taken by the Governor was against the Constitution. The court said that the government could not be restored as the CM had already resigned. Had Uddhav Thackeray not resigned, there could have been relief. The court cannot cancel the resignation given voluntarily.
In fact, after the rebellion of 15 MLAs along with Eknath Shinde, the Uddhav faction filed a petition demanding their disqualification. On the other hand, a petition was also filed on behalf of rebel leader Eknath Shinde. In which the disqualification notice issued by the Deputy Speaker was challenged. The petition sought to restrain the Deputy Speaker from taking any action on the disqualification petition in the matter until the motion to remove the Deputy Speaker is decided.
During the last hearing regarding the matter, the Supreme Court had raised many questions while making sharp remarks about the Governor. The court had asked whether the governor can conduct a floor test on the basis of internal rebellion in a political party? Was the Governor not aware that this could lead to a coup while calling the House of Assembly?
