SC Remains On Its Old Stand in a Matter of Floor Tests, And Experts Advocate Opinion For Implementation of the Anti-Defection Law

After the order passed by the Supreme Court to impose no-stay on the floor test order,  Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray submitted his resignation to the Governor at 9 pm on Wednesday.

Whenever any party has knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court to stop the floor test or extend the time, it has faced disappointment. It is clear from the judgments of the Supreme Court in this matter so far.

During the President’s rule in Uttarakhand in 2016, a bench of Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh had clearly said that if the government is in the minority, then the floor test is the final solution. The Supreme Court’s advocates have also agreed to the decision of the court.

During a conversation with the Indian Legal Reporter, the Supreme Court Advocate Sumeet Verma said “The court never stops the floor test, but tries to expedite the process in such a situation. So that the possibility of horse-trading can be avoided”.

Advocate Dinesh Kumar Garg also agreed with Sumit Verma’s point of view. Welcoming the SC’s decision, Dinesh Garg said, “Floor test is the only option in case of minority and Supreme Court has taken the right decision.”

However, the opinion of the legal experts regarding the Anti-Defection Law was slightly different. Before the crisis in Maharashtra, political parties of many states in the North-East, Uttarakhand, Karnataka, Goa, and Rajasthan faced this problem.

Karnataka faced this problem thrice in 2006, 2010 and 2019. In 2019, MLAs got disqualified under the Anti-Defection Act. In Goa, 10 out of 14 Congress MLAs joined BJP after winning on a Congress ticket. On the other hand, if we talk about the recent defection, 4 out of 5 MLAs of AIMIM in Bihar have joined RJD.

However, the Eknath Shinde of Shiv Sena has not joined any other party in Maharashtra yet. Advocate Dinesh Garg is in favour of taking action against the MLAs of the rebel faction. He said. “The matter has been brought to the attention of the Supreme Court. And Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi has to keep this matter in front of the court so the anti-defection law has been imposed against Eknath Shinde and his rebel MLAs.

Advocate Anil Karnwal also agreed with Dinesh Garg’s opinion on the matter of Anti Defection Law. Instead of making changes to Schedule 10, he subjected the strict implementation of the same law. Anil Karnwal objected to the petition filed by the rebel MLAs for urgent listing on 27 June. He raised his objection based on a circular issued by the Supreme Court on May 13 regarding the urgent listing.

Anil Karnwal said, “The petition filed against the Deputy Speaker does not fall anywhere in the category as per the given circulation, despite this the court heard this matter. The five types of cases discussed at the time of circulation for the urgent listing then that the court should not have dealt with the petition of the rebel groups.