Governor not empowered to enter into party disputes: SC

The Supreme Court on Thursday said the Governor is not empowered under the Constitution and the laws to enter the political arena and play a role, however minute, either in inter-party disputes or in intra-party disputes.

A five-judge bench presided over by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud came down heavily upon the then Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari saying he erred in concluding that Uddhav Thackeray, leaders of Maha Vikas Aghadi government in Maharashtra had lost the majority in the House and went by extraneous reasons by asking him to face a floor test.

Read | Supreme Court says can't restore Uddhav as CM, questions Governor's floor test move

Neither the Constitution nor the laws enacted by the Parliament provide for a mechanism by which disputes amongst members of a particular political party can be settled, and they certainly do not empower the Governor to do so, the bench said.

The bench also comprising Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, P S Narasimha, unanimously held the exercise of discretion by the Governor in this case was not in accordance with law.

The bench noted that the Governor relied on the letters written by Devendra Fadnavis and seven ‘independent’ MLAs, calling upon him to direct Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House.

Justice Chandrachud, who authored the 141-page judgement on behalf of the bench, said that first, both Fadnavis as well as the seven MLAs could have well moved a motion of no-confidence and nothing prevented them from doing so. Second, a request by some MLAs for a direction to the chief minister to prove his majority does not, taken alone, amount to a relevant and germane reason to call for a floor test.

The bench noted the Governor relied on the letter of June 25, 2022 from 36 Shiv Sena Legislative Party members claiming that the security provided to them and to their families was illegally withdrawn.

“The lack of security to MLAs has no bearing on the question of whether the government enjoys the confidence of the House. The appropriate response of the Governor in such cases is to ensure that the security that they are lawfully entitled to continues to be provided to them, if it has been removed. This was an extraneous reason that was considered by the Governor,” the bench said.

The lack of security cannot be taken to mean that they had withdrawn their support on the floor of the House and nothing in any of the communications relied upon by the Governor indicates that the dissatisfied MLAs from the Shiv Sena intended to withdraw their support to the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers, it said.