Why Did Uddhav Thackeray Not Face Trust Vote instead of Resigning? Supreme Court Asked

The Supreme Court on Thursday asked the Uddhav Thackeray’s faction why it did not face the trust vote before announcing his resignation on June 29,2022.

A Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, pointed out that Thackeray’s decision to resign as chief minister before the trust vote prevented a clear-cut conclusion on how the Eknath Shinde faction would have impacted the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government on the floor of the House, adding that it could be an impediment in Uddhav’s path when he impels the court to turn back the clock by reinstating him as CM.

On June 29,2022, hours after the Supreme Court declined to stay the floor test scheduled to be held a day later on the directive of the Maharashtra governor, Uddhav Thackeray announced his resignation.

“If you would have faced the trust vote and lost then it would have been clear that if the 39 people made a difference and it would show if these 39 affected the trust vote or otherwise… Did you not preclude the consideration of this possibility by not facing the trust vote?” senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the Thackeray faction, was asked by the bench.

Advocate Singhvi responded by saying that after the apex court refused to stay the floor test despite ordering the then-Deputy Speaker of the Assembly to decide the disqualification petitions against the Shinde faction, the only option was to resign rather than face humiliation.

“But on the other hand, if you had faced the trust vote and lost, it would have been clear how these 39 people affected the proceedings,” the bench retorted. The voting pattern would then determine whether these 39 influenced the trust vote.”

Despite the fact that Uddhav had resigned, Singhvi acknowledged, it cannot be forgotten that he had also sought the Supreme Court to suspend the trust vote because the disqualification was already stayed.

“The problem still in your path is that had the trust vote taken place, the outcome would have been known…today, you are asking us to turn back the clock, but before a constitutional court does that, we must be able to see an arguable outcome that makes a difference .Whether there would be a difference or not is foreclosed by the fact that you did not face the trust vote.”,” the bench stated. 

The Constitution Bench was hearing a bunch of petitions stemming from the Shiv Sena’s vertical split last year, as well as legal issues concerning the contours of disqualification proceedings and the powers of the governor and speaker in their respective spheres.

When asked about the reliefs sought by the Uddhav group, Singhvi stated that the request is to reverse the oath taken by Shinde as the new chief minister of the state on July 3 after Uddhav was forced to resign due to the party schism.

The senior lawyer went on to say that the court should turn back the clock and order a status quo ante by allowing the deputy speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions filed against Shinde and MLAs who support him.

The matter will be heard again by the bench on February 28, 2023. The Shinde faction has yet to weigh in on the issue.