Eknath Shinde Govt now in clear situation of danger: Adv Carlos on SC Sena vs Sena judgement
PANAJI: Aldona MLA Adv Carlos Alvares Ferreira termed the judgement of the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court as one having far reaching legal implications that placed the Eknath Shinde government in Maharashtra “in a clear situation of danger.”
“The first thing the SC said was that the Governor’s decision was illegal — this is a decision that will legally have far reaching implications. Because generally the Governor’s decisions are never called in question in court of law because constitutionally they have protection. Normally there is never a judgement on the actions of a Governor. But this is very important so that the Governor also acts in a constitutional mandate that if the Governor does not act within that constitutional mandate then the courts need to step in and lay down the law,” Adv Ferreira said.
Speaking on the implications of the Judgement, Adv Ferreira said that the Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena’s claim that there was a split in the party didn’t hold water since the paragraph (3) of the tenth schedule has since been omitted.
“The Eknath Shinde faction had said that there was a split in the party. And the SC has clearly said that there is no question of a split anymore in the constitution. Because para 3 of the Tenth schedule which allowed for a one-third split — is not there anymore. It has been omitted.
“If you are elected to one political party and if you change party, you are disqualified. Earlier there was an exception that if there was a one third split in the political party or a merger of the original political party of which there should be at least two thirds members of the house. There is now no question of merger, because they didn’t claim it was a merger. They claimed it was a split. If they say it is a split and the SC has said that the paragraph (3) for split isn’t there anymore so the issue of a disqualification will now arise,” he said.
“On this we will know that this split is of no consequence and you claim that it is a split, which means that you have voted against the party and second issue is the defying of the whip. Whip has to be issued by the original political party, not by the breakaway group. Which means that the original political party is the Shiv Sena,” Adv Ferreira also said.
In this judgement the Supreme Court has said that the Maharashtra Governor’s decision to call for a floor test was completely illegal. It is totally unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has said that the Governor has no power to call for a floor test just because there is a letter sent to him.
Adv Ferreira noted how the Supreme Court also said that “he (the Governor) roamed out of the constitutional bounds of his office into the political arena by calling for a trust vote without any objective material.”
“Which means that he was searching for a means to try and knock the government down. Such governors should not be kept,” he said.
The SC has also said that there was no justification for the floor test — because all these were already in government and they had not said that they had lost trust. Nobody had asked for a floor test. Floor test cannot be used as a means to settle differences within a political party. The Governor erred in concluding that Mr Thackeray had lost support.
“But the SC has not restored Uddhav Thackeray. Because the Supreme Court has said if he had faced the floor test and had lost, they could have considered restoring him. But he gave his resignation. Since he has resigned they couldn’t have done anything. If he were to face it and lost, the SC said they could have restored him,” Adv Ferreira said.
Loading ...
