As the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the Maharashtra MLAs disqualification case on Thursday, legal and constitutional experts turned their focus on the resignation letter submitted by Uddhav Thackeray as chief minister. The resignation, the court said, was voluntary and therefore Uddhav Thackeray could not be reinstated.
“The Supreme Court in today’s judgment has clearly said that it could have reinstated Uddhav Thackeray had he not resigned voluntarily. It is the voluntary resignation of Uddhav Thackeray that seems to have gone against him as the apex court,” said advocate Ujjwal Nikam, who has handled several high-profile cases representing the state.
Nikam said the contents of Thackeray’s letter held the key. “The apex court has not quoted the contents of the letter… We still do not know the contents of the letter. If the letter contains words like having to resign due to adverse conditions that prevailed, then it means he did not resign voluntarily and was forced to resign. In such a case, the Supreme Court bench, as per its ruling today, could have brought the government back,” Nikam said.
Follow Maharashtra Sena VS Sena Live Updates
When asked whether the team of lawyers representing Uddhav Thackeray had submitted the letter before the court, Shiv Sena chief spokesperson Sanjay Raut said, “I have no knowledge whether the team of lawyers submitted the letter before the court or not. But, yes, it is clear from the court’s verdict today that it was important for us to prove that Uddhav Thackeray had not resigned on his own and that he was forced to resign due to the circumstances that cropped up.”
Another senior Shiv Sena (UBT) leader said, “Uddhav Thackeray took the decision on his own. He did not consult any senior party leaders. He is an emotional person and took the decision as he was hurt by the way the MLAs whom he backed dumped him and ran away to join hands with BJP.”
Constitutional expert Ulhas Bapat expressed disappointment at the Supreme Court verdict. “I agree with several observations made by the court but not on two points…..Whether Uddhav Thackeray resigned voluntarily or did not resign voluntarily, has no meaning. In today’s ruling, when the apex court objected to the Governor’s action of calling for a floor test, then it should have maintained the status quo ante….it should have reinstated the government.”
Bapat said the then Governor had convened the state legislature session for holding the floor test without the approval of the State cabinet. “Therefore, the floor test convening itself was unconstitutional. And after that Uddhav Thackeray resigned. Therefore, the status quo ante should have bee maintained from the day the Governor called for floor test. This means from the time the Governor called the floor test which was unconstitutional, the situation that existed before that it should reinstated,” he said.
Bapat said the apex court should also have clarified its stand on the exit of two-thirds of the MLAs from the Shiv Sena which, he said, “did not happen in one go”. “The 39 Sena MLAs did not exit at one go. First only 16 exited from the Sena, so they become naturally disqualified,…the Supreme Court should have clarified this point which it did not do,” he said.
Advocate Sushil Mancharkar, another constitutional expert who had shot to national fame during the German Bakery case, said, “As per my reading of the Supreme Court observation regarding Uddhav Thackeray’s resignation, I think there was no way he could have stayed in the saddle after more than half of his MLAs defected along with his top lieutenant Eknath Shinde. Therefore, he had to resign on his own as he was left with no option. Uddhav Thackeray could not have submmitted an condtional letter of resignation. The resignation letter always has to be unconditional. The Governor would have rejected the letter, then and there, if Uddhav Thackeray had submitted a letter which contained certain objections and conditions,” he said.
Mancharkar said, “As Uddhav Thackeray had no option, he resigned. Therefore, Supreme Court should have emphasised this point.” Today’s verdict, Mancharkar said, “was a balanced one but did not provide justice”.
While welcoming parts of the judgment, B G Kolse-Patil, retired judge of the Bombay High Court, said, “Uddhav Thackeray was constrained to resign. He did not happily put in his resignation. When scores of his MLAs left, it was obvious that he was forced to quit. The Supreme Court should have given deep consideration to this aspect.”
Kolse-Patil also said, “When the Supreme Court has termed the then Governor’s action of calling the floor test as illegal, then how can the government be legal?”
