SUBHASH DESAI V. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GOVERNOR OF MAHARASHTRA & [1] ORS AIR SC 1501:

DATE: 11/05/2023

BENCH: Chief Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice M.R. Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha JJ.

FACTS:

On November 28, 2019, Uddhav Thackeray became the Chief Minister of Maharashtra as the leader of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) coalition. However, on June 21, 2022, Eknath Shinde, along with several Shiv Sena MLAs, left Maharashtra, citing ideological differences with the coalition. The dissident group initially traveled to Surat and later to Guwahati. In response, the Thackeray faction initiated disqualification proceedings against the rebel MLAs on June 25, 2022. Shinde challenged this move in the Supreme Court on June 26, 2022. The SC Vacation Bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, granted the rebel MLAs twelve days instead of the usual seven to respond to the disqualification notice. Following the withdrawal of support by the dissident group, the Maharashtra Governor ordered a floor test, which the Supreme Court refused to stay. Consequently, on June 29, 2022, Thackeray resigned as Chief Minister without facing the floor test.

The case was referred to a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on August 22, 2022, with hearings beginning on February 14, 2023. The Thackeray faction sought a larger seven-judge bench to hear the case, but this request was denied on February 17, 2023. On the same day, the Election Commission of India (ECI) recognized Shinde’s faction as the legitimate Shiv Sena and granted them the party’s name and bow-and-arrow symbol. On February 21, 2023, the Thackeray group argued that the Shinde faction’s conduct amounted to desertion and that they should be disqualified. The matter revolved around key constitutional questions related to defection, disqualification, and the powers of the Governor and Speaker in cases of political instability.

ISSUES:

The case examines whether the Speaker’s dismissal notice bars disqualification under Schedule X and if courts can disqualify members without the Speaker’s ruling. It also questions the Speaker’s authority over the parliamentary party’s whip and leader, the judicial review of the Governor’s power to form a government, and the Election Commission’s role in handling internal party disputes.

JUDGEMENT WTH REASONING:

The Court ruled that the Speaker’s decision on July 3, 2022, regarding the whip and leader of the House was illegal and must be reconsidered based on the Shiv Sena Political Party’s choice. It held that the Governor was unjustified in asking Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority but was justified in inviting Eknath Shinde to form the government after Thackeray’s resignation. The Court also clarified that disqualification petitions under the 10th Schedule and party symbol disputes under the Election Commission's jurisdiction could proceed concurrently.

The Court emphasized that a Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings while facing a removal resolution, as held in the Nabam Rebia ruling, which was referred to a larger Bench for review. It also reaffirmed that the Political Party, not the Legislative Party, determines the whip and leader, rendering the Speaker’s July 3, 2022, decision invalid. Additionally, the Court ruled that an MLA retains the right to participate in House proceedings regardless of pending disqualification petitions.

The Court found that the Governor acted improperly in calling for a floor test without objective evidence that Thackeray had lost the House’s confidence. However, since Thackeray voluntarily resigned, the Court could not reinstate his government. Consequently, the Governor’s decision to invite Shinde to form the government was justified, given that the BJP, the largest party, supported him. The Court upheld that disqualification proceedings under the 10th Schedule must follow proper procedure, with the Speaker given reasonable time to decide.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court’s decision carefully balanced constitutional principles with political realities, reaffirming key legal precedents while avoiding direct interference in legislative matters. By ruling that the Speaker’s decision on the whip and leader was invalid, the Court reinforced the primacy of the Political Party over the Legislative Party in determining party leadership. Additionally, by referring the Nabam Rebia ruling to a larger Bench, the Court acknowledged the need for further clarity on whether a Speaker facing a removal motion can still exercise disqualification powers. However, the Court refrained from setting a precedent that could empower judicial overreach into the legislature’s functioning, maintaining that an MLA retains the right to participate in House proceedings despite pending disqualification petitions. This approach reflects a cautious yet firm stance on preserving democratic processes and institutional integrity.

Moreover, the ruling addressed the Governor’s role in the political crisis, underscoring the constitutional limitations on gubernatorial discretion. By declaring that the Governor lacked objective grounds to call for a floor test, the Court signaled that such powers must be exercised with caution and not as a tool to destabilize elected governments. However, the Court’s refusal to reinstate Thackeray’s government—citing his voluntary resignation—demonstrates a pragmatic approach, acknowledging political developments beyond judicial control. The ruling also clarified the concurrent jurisdiction of the Election Commission and the Speaker in handling party disputes and disqualification matters, ensuring procedural consistency. Overall, the decision reinforces constitutional checks and balances, preventing undue interference by any single authority while upholding the institutional autonomy of political and electoral processes.