
Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde could not have become Maharashtra Chief Minister if the Speaker was not restrained from deciding the disqualification petitions pending against 39 MLAs, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, even as the Shinde faction claimed the MVA government would have fallen in any case as it had lost majority.
New Delhi, March 1
Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde could not have become Maharashtra Chief Minister if the Speaker was not restrained from deciding the disqualification petitions pending against 39 MLAs, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, even as the Shinde faction claimed the MVA government would have fallen in any case as it had lost majority.
Feud over Shiv Sena
They (Uddhav faction) are right to the extent that Shinde was sworn in as CM as the Speaker couldn’t proceed with disqualification proceedings. SC Bench
Shinde won the crucial floor test in the Assembly on July 4, 2022, with the support of the BJP and Independent MLAs. “They (Uddhav faction) are right to the extent that Shinde was sworn in as CM by the Governor and was able to prove his majority because the Speaker was not able to proceed with the disqualification proceedings against him and other MLAs,” a five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud told senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, who represented the Shinde faction.
The Bench, which also included Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha, was hearing issues arising of the 2022 political crisis in Maharashtra that led to the fall of the Uhhdhav Thackeray-led MVA government.
The Shinde faction contended that even if the 39 MLAs would have been disqualified, the MVA government would have fallen because it had lost majority and the then CM had resigned before the floor test.
The Thackeray faction had earlier submitted that the formation of Shinde-led government was the “direct and inevitable result” of the two orders of the SC dated June 27, 2022 (restraining the Speaker from deciding the pending disqualification petitions) and June 29, 2022 (allowing the trust vote) that “disturbed the co-equal and mutual balance” between judicial and legislative organs of the State.