In a major setback to the Shiv Sena-led government in Maharashtra, Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray resigned from his post and as an MLC less than an hour after the Supreme Court on Wednesday allowed the floor test to go on as scheduled.
"I want to express my gratitude to the people of NCP and Congress that they supported me. From Shiv Sena, Anil Parab, Subhash Desai, and Aaditya Thackeray...only these people were only present when the proposal was passed. NCP and Congress people also supported the proposal," Thackeray said.
However, after Thackeray's announcement, the scheduled floor test will not take place. Governor BHagat Singh Koshiyari will now have to weigh his options which include inviting the largest party (the BJP) to form the next government if they have the requisite support from other parties. All eyes will now be on the Sharad Pawar-led Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) for their next political move.
Shiv Sena's Chief Whip Sunil Prabhu on Wednesday morning had urged the top court for an evening hearing where they could argue against the floor test called by Maharashtra's Governor Bhagat Singh Koshiyari. Prabhu submitted that the governor's decision to issue directions for a floor test was illegal and called at the behest of the leader of the opposition.
The top court also allowed jailed NCP leaders Anil Deshmukh and Nawab Malik to participate in the floor test tomorrow. Since the two are in custody, the police will accompany them to the Vidhan Sabha and take them back to jail once the proceedings are over.
BOOM recaps the arguments put forth during the late evening hearing that went on way past 9 pm.
Also Read: Explained: What Is A Floor Test And Why Is It Held?
Decide Disqualification before Floor Test: Shiv Sena
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued against the floor test till after the Speaker decided on the disqualification notice issued to 16 rebel MLAs. The Supreme Court on Monday had given relief to the rebelling MLAs and allowed them time till July 12 to respond to the disqualification notices issued to them.
"The decision of the Speaker will change the pool [of] who will be voting. Before plunging into the pool, the size has to be noted," Singhvi said.
If the floor test went on tomorrow as scheduled, then the pending matter on the disqualification of the rebelling MLAs would become infructuous, Singhvi argued.
"Suppose the petition is dismissed, and the speaker disqualifies, how do we reverse the result of the floor test tomorrow? It is an irreversible process," Singhvi said when the court asked him how the matter would become infructuous.
Singhvi further pointed out that if MLAs who had been served disqualification notices were allowed to vote at the floor test, then it would amount to letting disqualified MLAs vote. This is because if the MLAs were found to be disqualified, then according to settled judgments, this disqualification would kick in from the date of notice – that is June 21.
Questioning the governor's 'hasty' decision, Singhvi said he was bound to act on the aid and advise of the council of ministers. "Here he may act on the advice of ministers or not, but definitely cannot act on the advice of opposition," Singhvi argued.
Supreme Court judge Surya Kant then asked: "Suppose a government knows that they have lost the majority of the house, and the Speaker is asked to issue a disqualification notice to those withdrawing their support. Then at that point should the Governor wait for calling a floor test or can he independently decide?"
Allowing the floor test to happen without waiting for the disqualification petition to conclude would render the tenth schedule (anti-defection law) on defection inconsequential, Singhvi replied.
"Heavens will not fall if the floor test does not take place tomorrow and the governor waits till July 11" (when the SC decides on the disqualification plea), Singhvi said.
Either the speaker should be allowed to decide the disqualification proceedings against the rebel MLAs or the floor test has to be stayed, Singhvi asserted.
Also Read: SC Extends Deadline For Rebel Shiv Sena MLAs Reply On Disqualification Notice
Why is CM shying away from a floor test if he has the majority?: Eknath Shinde-led camp
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kaul, for Eknath Shinde-led rebel faction, said the Supreme Court ruling is clear – first, the Speaker proceedings will go on, and then disqualification proceedings will follow.
How can one rule out political considerations? The more you delay a floor test, the more damage you do to the Constitution, Kaul argued. The best way to prevent horse-trading is to conduct a floor test, he said.
A speaker cannot decide disqualification proceedings when a no-confidence motion against him is pending, Kaul added.
"You (Speaker) are seized of a matter, you know there are proceedings against you, you cannot proceed at all. It is a jurisdictional issue," he asserted. However, the pendency of disqualification proceedings is not a ground to stop floor test, Kaul contended.
"The floor should never be delayed the only way to test horse-trading is floor test, merely because pendency of proceedings pertaining to MLAs who have resigned or have faced a wrath from the speaker is not grounds for delay," he added.
"When the CM has lost confidence in the house, the moment the CM shows reluctance, it shows that he knows he has lost the majority. This is all the more reason to have a floor test," Kaul argued before the vacation bench of the Supreme Court.
Unless or until the decision of the governor, is shown to be unreasonable, it cannot be interfered with, Kaul pointed out.
Kaul asked why the Thackeray-led camp was shying away from the floor test. It should prove it has the majority, he added.
Referring to the Eknath Shinde-led camp, Kaul broke down the numbers and said: There are 288 MLAs. There are some independent MLAs & I have the support of nine of them. We are not leaving the Shiv Sena, we are the Shiv Sena. We represent the majority, it is the minority that is trying to stop this floor test, he said.
Supporting Kaul's argument, Singh said whenever the courts have held such late hearings, it is never to stop floor test, it is to conduct a floor test. This is the first time a request is made to stop a floor test.
"What your lordship has to ensure that there is the compliance of natural justice. When the MLAs came, your lordship said give them time to respond. That is principle of natural justice," Singh contended.
Also Read: Maharashtra Governor's Call For Floor Test Illegal: Shiv Sena to SC