“Undue, Unholy Haste In No-Trust Vote”: Team Thackeray To Supreme Court
Uddhav Thackeray’s team alleged that the MLAs had “hobnobbed with other parties including the BJP.”
New Delhi:
On Uddhav Thackeray challenging an order to prove his majority tomorrow, the Supreme Court asked today how the vote was linked to the disqualification of MLAs.
Maharashtra’s ruling coalition had asked for the disqualification of Shiv Sena rebel Eknath Shinde and 15 MLAs, but they were given time till July 12 to respond to notices served by the Deputy Speaker, whose power to decide has also been questioned.
Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari showed “undue and unholy haste” in ordering Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority, said Uddhav Thackeray’s team.
It also alleged that the MLAs had “hobnobbed with other parties including the BJP.”
“How does floor test depend on disqualification proceedings? Or the power of the Deputy Speaker? Are those interrelated,” the Supreme Court said.
“If you allow a floor test then you will be possibly allowing people who would be disqualified on July 11,” replied senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing team Thackeray.
“The effect of you extending the time is that Deputy Speaker cannot decide on the disqualification yet. On July 11 your views may or may not change. How can they vote on June 30 if they stood disqualified from June 22 itself?”
He added, “Will heaven fall if a floor test is not conducted tomorrow? Why can’t they wait till July 11. The next Supreme Court hearing?”
Defection, per law, is “sin”, said Mr Singhvi.
“This cuts into roots of democracy. How can somebody who is not part of the pool be allowed to swim in it,” he questioned.
“The governor cannot act on the aid and advice of the leader of opposition. The Chief Minister and the council of ministers was not even consulted,” Mr Singhvi said.
“You would be allowing a person to vote who is not even a member of the assembly. It’s like allowing a person from the street to vote in the floor test.”
As team Thackeray objected to the Governor’s letter asking for the test of strength, the Supreme Court asked whether it was disputing that 34 MLAs were on the rebels’ side.
“Nobody knows the duress under which these MLAs may have been kept,” Mr Singhvi said, commenting that the Governor never called the MLAs to check.
“But why should Governor decide whether 34 MLAs are this side or that side. That is for democracy to decide,” the Supreme Court pointed out.
“These issues (which MLA is on which side) cannot be left to the subjective views of the Governor. It is to be decided on the floor of the house.”
