Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the Shinde faction, said that the Governor does not have the mandate to discern political rivalries or new alliances.
Singhvi meanwhile argued that the top court would be turning parliamentary democracy on its head if it is argued that a whip is not elected by the leader of the political party.
“In the context of the whip it cannot be argued that political party leader does not appoint it but the legislative party leader appoints it.“
Singhvi argued that the Shinde camp ‘annihilated’ the 10th schedule by sending a notice to the Speaker effectively disabling him.
“The second step is to forward resolutions to the governor parallelly. And the third step is to be sworn in as the Chief Minister with the support of a party in whose lap you were sitting in Guwahati. There is no merger at all.“
CJI Chandrachud then remarked that the Court was not adjudicating upon the Speaker issue but the trust vote.
“Governor asks for a trust vote: now Governor has material to call for trust vote? And moving ahead calling Shinde to become the CM. Assuming he had material to call for trust vote, why did he call Shinde to become CM. Also, there was no material to call for the trust vote with the Governor.“
Singhvi said that Thackeray’s resignation did not validate the Governor’s actions.
“So you are saying that Article 189 recognizes de facto doctrine and it legitimises decisions of authority whose appointment is found illegal later on but that does not make the decisions illegal,” the bench in summarising Singhvi’s rejoinder arguments said.
“Dissent has to be within the parameters of 10th schedule. You cannot say I am dissenting and I am leaving the 10th schedule“, the Senior Counsel said.
Source: Barandbench
