Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra

Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra is a landmark case concerning the disqualification process under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which deals with the disqualification of members of Parliament and State Legislatures on the grounds of defection. The case arises from a political crisis in Maharashtra, involving the Shiv Sena party, and addresses significant constitutional issues such as the powers of the Governor, the Speaker, and the Election Commission of India (ECI), especially in the context of intra-party disputes and government formation. 

This case brought critical questions regarding the limits of judicial intervention in disqualification proceedings, the role of the Speaker, and the discretionary powers of the Governor in inviting someone to form the government.

Background of Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra

The events leading up to the case were rooted in the 2019 Maharashtra Assembly elections. After the election results:

• The BJP secured 106 seats.
• The Shiv Sena won 56 seats.
• The NCP secured 53 seats, and INC won 44 seats.

Despite being allies in the 2019 elections, the Shiv Sena, under Uddhav Thackeray, formed a post-poll alliance with NCP and INC, collectively known as the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA). Uddhav Thackeray became the Chief Minister of Maharashtra under this coalition.

However, in June 2022, a faction within the Shiv Sena led by Eknath Shinde rebelled against Thackeray’s leadership. This internal revolt marked the beginning of a political crisis that eventually led to disqualification petitions against both factions of the Shiv Sena. The dispute over leadership, coupled with disqualification proceedings and political manoeuvring, created a tense situation. 

Ultimately, Thackeray resigned as Chief Minister on June 29, 2022, and Eknath Shinde was invited by the Governor to form the government. This political reorganisation prompted the filing of the present case by Subhash Desai, General Secretary of Thackeray’s faction, challenging the legality of the Governor’s actions.

Facts of Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra Case

The case arose from political instability in Maharashtra. The Shiv Sena faction led by Uddhav Thackeray faced an internal rebellion led by Eknath Shinde. In response to the revolt:

• Thackeray’s faction moved to remove Shinde as the legislative party leader.
• Shinde’s faction refused to accept this and instead continued to assert leadership under his guidance.
• Disqualification petitions were filed against members of both factions, accusing them of defection.

In the midst of this political crisis, the Governor ordered a floor test on June 30, 2022, for Thackeray to prove his majority. However, on June 29, Thackeray resigned as Chief Minister, and Eknath Shinde was invited by the Governor to form a new government, which was contested by Thackeray’s faction. Further complications arose with the appointment of Rahul Narwekar (BJP) as Speaker of the Assembly on July 3-4, 2022, and the recognition of Shinde as the Shiv Sena legislative party leader.

The Election Commission granted Shinde’s faction the “bow and arrow” symbol on October 17, 2022, solidifying Shinde’s position in the political battle.

Issues Raised

The Supreme Court in Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra examined the following critical issues:

1. Speaker’s Authority to Decide Disqualification Matters: Whether a Speaker facing a removal notice can continue with the disqualification proceedings as per the Tenth Schedule.
2. Judicial Intervention in Disqualification Cases: Whether a petition under Article 226 or Article 32 can be filed for a decision on disqualification matters before the High Court or Supreme Court.
3. Deemed Disqualification: Whether a member can be deemed disqualified based on their actions in the absence of a formal Speaker’s decision.
4. Validity of Legislative Proceedings: What is the status of the legislative proceedings during the pendency of disqualification petitions.
5. Governor’s Power to Invite a Person to Form Government: The extent of the Governor’s discretion in inviting a leader to form the government and whether such decisions are subject to judicial review.
6. Election Commission’s Role in Party Split: The powers of the Election Commission to decide on party splits and whether its decisions are subject to judicial scrutiny.

Court’s Findings and Analysis in Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court’s judgement in Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra dealt with complex constitutional issues and provided a detailed analysis of the powers of the various constitutional bodies involved.

Floor Test and Governor’s Role

• The Court declared that the Governor’s decision to call for a floor test was unlawful. The Governor did not have objective material to justify the claim that Thackeray had lost the confidence of the House.
• However, since Thackeray voluntarily resigned, the Court held that the fall of the previous government was independent of the Governor’s action. The status quo could not be restored because Thackeray had tendered his resignation.
• The Court upheld the Governor‘s discretion to invite Eknath Shinde to form the government, as this decision was based on the political reality at the time, despite procedural flaws.

Disqualification Process and the Speaker’s Authority

• The Court emphasised that the Speaker has the primary responsibility to decide on disqualification petitions. The Speaker must decide the petitions within a reasonable time, and any delay in such decisions would be a failure to discharge constitutional duties.
• The Court also addressed the concern of whether the Speaker could continue to preside over disqualification matters if they were themselves subject to a removal notice. The Court held that a Speaker, facing a removal notice, does not lose the constitutional authority to make decisions on disqualification matters.

Deemed Disqualification and Legislative Proceedings

• The Court rejected the idea of “deemed” disqualification in the absence of a Speaker’s decision. It ruled that an MLA cannot be automatically disqualified without the Speaker’s formal ruling.
• Regarding the status of legislative proceedings during the pendency of disqualification petitions, the Court held that such proceedings were valid and unaffected by pending disqualification matters. The Court reinforced that an MLA’s participation in the proceedings is not subject to the outcome of their disqualification petition.

Election Commission’s Role

• The Court acknowledged that both the Election Commission and the Speaker can concurrently adjudicate issues arising under the Tenth Schedule and the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order.
• The Election Commission’s decision regarding the “bow and arrow” symbol was upheld as valid, and the Court clarified that it was within the purview of the Election Commission to determine the legitimacy of factional splits within a party.

Observations and Conclusions in Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra

The Court made several key observations that are crucial for understanding the implications of this judgement:

1. No Arbitrary Judicial Intervention: The Court reiterated that judicial intervention in intra-party matters should be rare and limited. The judiciary should generally refrain from intervening in disputes regarding the leadership of political parties unless there are clear constitutional violations.
2. Power of the Governor: The Court emphasised that while the Governor has the discretion to invite a leader to form the government, this decision should be based on objective facts and material evidence. In the case at hand, the Governor’s decision was not supported by sufficient material and was hence deemed unlawful.
3. Disqualification Proceedings: The Court established that the Speaker must resolve disqualification petitions expeditiously, and if delays occur, it undermines the constitutional mandate to maintain the integrity of the legislative process. While disqualification proceedings are a matter for the Speaker, the Court also clarified that in case of a dispute regarding leadership, the Speaker should first determine which faction holds the leadership before proceeding with the disqualification.
4. No Retroactive Effect on Proceedings: The Court upheld that disqualification does not have a retroactive effect on proceedings. Even if a disqualification is eventually decided, the decisions made during the pendency of such petitions remain valid.
5. Concurrent Role of the Election Commission and Speaker: The Court clarified that the Election Commission and Speaker could address matters related to party splits and disqualification proceedings concurrently, each within their designated constitutional boundaries.

Conclusion

Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra is a significant judgement that provides clarity on several aspects of the Indian Constitution, particularly the Tenth Schedule, which deals with the disqualification of legislators. The case highlights the importance of judicial restraint when dealing with intra-party disputes while emphasising the need for prompt action on disqualification matters by the Speaker.