The most interesting thing about the Supreme Court of India’s judgment on the Shiv Sena issue is that both sides think that it is in their favour. The Chief Justice of India has apparently analysed the issues with clarity and reached conclusions with a great amount of ingenuity. However, it eludes ordinary citizens how each party can think that the statement of law contained in the judgment is in its favour. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse the judgment and find out what the top court of the land has actually said on the contentious issues brought up before it.
Floor test was wrong in law
The Maharashtra Governor’s action in calling for a floor test has been very severely criticised by the Court, which characterised it as illegal. The judgment says, “In the present case the Governor did not have any objective material before him to indicate that the incumbent government had lost the confidence of the House and that he should call for a floor test. Hence, the exercise of discretion by the governor in this case was not in accordance with Law.” The Court has said in so many words that the Governor is a constitutional authority and should not involve himself in any inner- or intra-party disputes. Well, it is logical for the Court to say that the resignation of Uddhav Thackeray as Chief Minister before the floor test has effectively prevented the Court from restoring his Chief Minister-ship and thus doing complete justice in this case. But there is no doubt that the Governor was wrong in law in calling for the floor test.
