The office of the Speaker in the Maharashtra Assembly was vacant for nearly 17 months, but it was filled up by an election held within two days of a new regime taking over. Rahul Narvekar of the BJP won with 164 votes in his favour and only 107 against, a margin that reflects the extent of support that Chief Minister Eknath Shinde enjoys in the House now. What facilitated Mr. Narvekar’s election was the change of heart on the part of Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari, who has been refusing to fix a date for the election. In a partisan manner that has become typical for Governors, Mr. Koshyari has been citing the pendency of litigation, related to amendments to the Assembly Rules on the mode of electing a Speaker, to avoid fixing a date as required by Rule 6. Even though the Supreme Court is yet to dispose of an appeal in this matter, the Governor seems to have quietly withdrawn his objection and fixed the date for the Speaker’s election. Significantly, the election took place by open ballot as envisaged by the changed rules. The BJP, while in the opposition, was rooting for a secret ballot in the Speaker’s election, apparently in the expectation, even much before the Shinde camp’s revolt, that some members of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) constituents will vote against the ruling alliance. On the other hand, former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray favoured an open ballot as a possible deterrent against crossvoting.
It is worth noting that the Constitution envisages no role for the Governor in the Speaker’s election, which is the prerogative of the House. It is only as a courtesy to the fact that the Governor is part of the legislature that the Assembly Rules say that the Governor shall fix the date for the Speaker’s election. It obviously means that the Governor shall do so on the advice of the Council of Ministers, but incumbents in Raj Bhavan entertain a perverse notion these days that they exercise power at their whim. If any Governor believed that he had any say in the matter of fixing a date for the Speaker’s election, it is both contrary to the constitutional scheme and a sign of playing a politically partisan role. One part of the problem was that the amended rule said the Governor shall fix a date “on the recommendation of the Chief Minister”, raising a doubt whether it was an individual piece of advice. The Bombay High Court, however, noted that there is nothing to suggest that the CM’s opinion did not have the support of his Cabinet or that any constitutional provision has been violated. As the erstwhile dissidents from the Shiv Sena have emerged the present-day rulers and demonstrated their majority in the Assembly, these controversies may mean little now. However, it again shows that constitutional functionaries never rise above the political thicket.
