The <a href="https://www.mid-day.com/news/india-news/article/sc-rejects-plea-seeking-recusal-of-cji-chandrachud-from-hearing-pleas-on-same-sex-marriage-23285743" target="_blank" rel="none noopener">Supreme Court</a> is likely to deliver the verdict on Thursday on various petitions filed by the rival factions Uddhav Thackeray and Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in connection with the Maharashtra political crisis.
The verdict will be delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
CJI Chandrachud on Wednesday said that "We are going to be delivering two judgments tomorrow."
The five-judge Constitution bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha was dealing with the issue related to Maharashtra political crisis.
The court had earlier reserved the order after all the parties concluded their arguments.
The lawyer appearing for the Uddhav Thackeray camp had said that the illegal act of the Maharashtra Governor is a prior pending sub judice challenge before the trust vote.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Uddhav Thackeray camp had said that political party has primacy in the relationship between the legislature and political party.
Kapil Sibal argued that the Constitution does not recognise any faction whether there is a majority or minority. Sibal further argued that the dissent was outside the House not inside the House.
CJI Chandrachud had sought to know from the lawyer of the Uddhav Thackeray camp whether the Governor cannot look at the number of members who say they want to withdraw support.
CJI noted that there was a group who did not want to support the then government and may face disqualification, which can affect the strength of the House.
Kapil Sibal replied that this used to take place when there was no tenth schedule of the Constitution. He said that the Govornor cannot call for a trust vote based on a faction as calling for a trust vote is based on alliances. He said that suddenly some members decided to withdraw support.
During the hearing, the top court had noted that a merger was not an option for the Shinde camp because it was not their case as a merger may lead to losing their political identity.
The Supreme Court's Constitution bench earlier said it would decide later on referring the cases related to the <a href="https://www.mid-day.com/search/maharashtra-articles" target="_blank" rel="none noopener">Maharashtra</a> political crisis to a larger seven-judge bench for reconsideration of a 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment on powers of Assembly Speakers to deal with disqualification pleas.
The hearing that went on for almost nine days had witnesses and arguments made by various senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal and AM Singhvi for the Uddhav camp and Harish Salve, NK Kaul and Mahesh Jethmalani for the Shinde camp.
Also Read: <a href="https://www.mid-day.com/mumbai/mumbai-news/article/maharashtra-govt-is-stable-assembly-speaker-rahul-narwekar-23285704" target="_blank" rel="none noopener">Maharashtra govt is stable: Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar</a>
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Maharashtra Governor and explained to the Court about the Governor's decision to call for a floor test after a rival camp wrote that they were withdrawing support from Uddhav Thackeray-led government as they did not want to continue.
During the hearing, the Court observed that Governor should not enter into any area which precipitates the fall of a government and called Maharashtra political crisis a serious issue for democracy.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing on behalf of the Maharashtra Governor, apprised the Court with the fact that the rival legislators had written to the Governor about their unwillingness to continue with the then government and the Governor invited Thackeray to prove his majority.
Uddhav Thackeray camp had submitted before the Supreme Court that if a crisis like in Maharastra was permitted then it will have far-reaching consequences for the country as any government can be toppled. Uddhav Thackeray camp had also submitted that the rival camp had no defence under the tenth schedule.
Shinde Camp had argued before the Supreme Court that the head counting is not meant for taking place in Raj Bhavan but in the floor of the House and the Governor did nothing wrong by calling the floor test.
Countering the argument of the rival Uddhav Thackeray camp, Senior Advocate NK Kaul, appearing on behalf of the Shinde camp, said that political party and legislative party are conjoined and connected and the argument made by Uddhav Thackeray camp that the other factions represent the legislative party and not a political party is a fallacy. He also said that dissent is the hallmark of democracy.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever
 <script async="async" data-cfasync="false" src="//pl23789885.revenuecpmgate.com/7445444aea29efc3d061cbd866026c06/invoke.js"></script>
 <div id="container-7445444aea29efc3d061cbd866026c06"></div>

The verdict will be delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud

Maharashtra political crisis: SC likely to pronounce verdict on pleas by Uddhav Thackeray, Shinde factions on May 11

Trending Stories

Latest Photos

Latest Videos

Latest Web Stories

Mid-Day Fast

Home / News / India News / Article / Maharashtra political crisis: SC likely to pronounce verdict on pleas by Uddhav Thackeray, Shinde factions on May 11

Maharashtra political crisis: SC likely to pronounce verdict on pleas by Uddhav Thackeray, Shinde factions on May 11

Trending Stories

Latest Photos

Latest Videos

Latest Web Stories

Mid-Day Fast