Maharashtra Political Crisis Case: Starting it in the court can be dangerous… Why Harish Salve said in SC


Mumbai:During the hearing in the Supreme Court on Thursday on the questions arising out of the Maharashtra political crisis, senior advocate Harish Salve argued that the matter is of political scope and there could be danger if it is initiated by the court. Earlier, NK Kaul, appearing for the Shinde group, responded to the arguments of Thackeray group’s counsel Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

After NK Kaul’s argument on behalf of Shinde Group, Harish Salve presented the argument and said that this matter comes under political purview. It should not be started in the court, it can be dangerous. He said that Uddhav Thackeray had resigned and then the governor had asked Eknath Shinde for a floor test. During the floor test, 13 MLAs of the Uddhav group voted in favor of the Shinde group.

‘Governor’s job is not to count the number of people’
He argued that the Supreme Court in the S R Bommai judgment had said that the governor would ask for a floor test. The job of the governor is not to count the number of people. In this case, Singhvi and Sibal said that the courts count the number of people and this can be a dangerous practice. Yes there can be an academic debate to remove some of the shortcomings of the 10th schedule. However, further hearing will be held on March 14.

In the last hearing on February 17, the Supreme Court refused to send the matter to a larger bench to reconsider the Nabam Rebia judgment. After this, the hearing started on the legal questions before the bench of five judges. During this, Sibal, on behalf of the Thackeray group, argued that in recent times it is visible that the governors are also getting involved in the politics of the country.

What is in Rebia case?
Significantly, there is an issue in the Supreme Court regarding the judgment given by the Supreme Court in 2016 in the Nabam Rebia case. In the Rebia case, the Supreme Court held that the Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings when a motion for his removal is pending.

However, a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court refused to refer the matter for the time being. During the hearing on the questions arising out of the Maharashtra political crisis, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court had referred the matter to a constitutional bench.

Get the more Politics news updates

Scroll to Top