Produce papers on Maha CM swearing-in, SC tells Centre
INTERVENTION Court seeks order inviting BJP to form government; call on floor test likely today
NEWDELHI/MUMBAI: The Supreme Court on Sunday ordered the Centre to produce on Monday documents pertaining to the swearing in of Devendra Fadnavis as Maharashtra chief minister as it heard a Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) and Congress petition challenging governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari’s decision to invite the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to form the government in the state on Saturday.
A bench of justices NV Ramana, Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna said that they have to see the order Koshyari issued, inviting Fadnavis to form the government and the chief minister’s letter to the governor staking the BJP’s claim to do so. An order will be passed after examining these records, the bench added.
The bench declined solicitor general Tushar Mehta’s plea seeking two days to produce the letters and ordered the Centre to do so by 10:30am on Monday, when the matter will be taken up again. It also issued notices to the Centre, Maharashtra government, Fadnavis and NCP’s Ajit Pawar, who was sworn in as the deputy chief minister.
The SC issued the directions
at a special hearing on a holiday.
In another day of drama, the BJP on Sunday accused its onetime ally Shiv Sena of committing the “sin” of abandoning its founder Bal Thackeray’s thoughts of aligning with the BJP by going with the Congress and the NCP for the sake of acquiring power in Maharashtra.
Addressing a press conference after attending the BJP legislature party meeting in Mumbai, senior party leader Ashish Shelar said they discussed a strategy to win the impending floor test comfortably.
Demanding a floor test immediately, Congress’s chief spokesperson Randeep Surjewala alleged that the BJP is “running away” from proving a majority in the Maharashtra Assembly as it does not have the required numbers.
Meanwhile, NCP chief Sharad Pawar and Sena’s Uddhav Thackeray met at a suburban resort where the NCP legislators have been staying. The Sena chief was joined by senior party leaders and son Aaditya Thackeray, who won the last month’s Maharashtra Assembly polls from Worli seat in Mumbai, during his discussion with Pawar, sources told news agency PTI.
Several MLAs, who were believed to have supported the BJP-Ajit Pawar combine, have since returned to the NCP fold, saying they were unaware of why they had been summoned by Ajit Pawar on Saturday.
Fadnavis was sworn in as the chief minister on Saturday morning hours after NCP chief Sharad Pawar announced that the three parties are backing Shiv Sena president Uddhav Thackeray to head the ‘Maha Vikas Aghadi’ coalition government.
Ajit Pawar, Sharad Pawar’s nephew and the NCP’s legislative party leader who was removed from the post on Saturday, was administered the oath of office at a quick swearing-in ceremony as Fadnavis’s deputy shortly after President’s Rule in the state was repealed.
President’s Rule was imposed in the state on November 12 as the BJP decided to sit out while the Sena played hardball after the results were announced on October 24 and insisted on sharing the chief minister’s post. The move came even as Sharad Pawar started working on a Sena-Congress-NCP alliance
Sharad Pawar and his daughter, Supriya Sule, have maintained that there has been a split in both the party and their family before Ajit Pawar was removed as the NCP legislature party leader.
In a series of tweets after thanking BJP leaders for their congratulatory messages, Ajit Pawar also said the “BJP- NCP alliance” will provide a stable government in Maharashtra for the next five years.
“I am in the NCP and shall always be in the NCP and Sharad Pawar is our leader...” the 60-year-old leader tweeted, adding: “There is absolutely no need to worry, all is well.
The BJP is the single-largest party in the 288-member Maharashtra assembly with 105 members. The NCP has 54, Shiv Sena 56, and Congress 44 members in the House. Other parties and Independents have a strength of 29.
In their petition filed in the SC on Saturday, the Maha Vikas Aghadi asked the court to issue a direction to Koshyari to invite the coalition to form the government. The three parties claimed that they have 154 lawmaker in the assembly and added that Fadnavis was sworn in a “makeshift and a hurriedly convened swearing in ceremony”.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the Maha Vikas Aghadi, told the court on Sunday that the governor action “smacks of bias”. He cited the 2018 SC order following elections in Karnataka and added that the BJP should be asked to prove their majority in the House.
Sibal alleged that a floor test was being delayed “so that the BJP can use the intervening period for something else”. “If they have the majority, let them show it. The BJP does not want to hold a floor test soon...”
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who also appeared for the alliance, told the court that 41 NCP lawmakers have signed a resolution removing Ajit Pawar as their legislature party leader.
“Then how can he [Ajit Pawar] claim that he has 54 MLAs [members of the legislative assembly with him],” asked Singhvi. He requested the court to hold a floor test on Monday.
Mehta, who appeared for the
Centre, sought time to produce the letters, saying that he received a copy of the alliance’s petition only at 11.30pm on Saturday.
Sibal called Koshyari’s decision to revoke President’s Rule and administer oath to Fadnavis as “bizarre”. Singhvi said the move amounted to “murder of democracy”.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, who appeared for two BJP and some independent lawmakers, questioned the petition’s maintainability, saying the petitioners should have approached the Bombay high court.
Rohatgi questioned how political parties could move the SC under Constitution’s Article 32 for violation of the fundamental rights. “They [Shiv Sena, NCP, and Congress] were given time but they did not form government… let Fadnavis prove majority as there was no tearing hurry.”
Rohatgi said that a governor’s decision to invite a political party is not open to judicial review as it is his discretionary power.