News Desk, AnyTV, Mumbai
Published by: Amit Mandal
Updated Fri, 04 Mar 2022 05:43 PM IST
Summary
The amendments made in December last year to Rule 6 and 7 of the Legislature Rules for the election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly have been challenged by a PIL.
The Bombay High Court on Friday asked BJP MLA Girish Mahajan and another petitioner to state whether it is constitutionally wrong to mandate the Chief Minister to advise the Governor on the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. There is provision. A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice MS Karnik observed that the petitioners Mahajan and Janak Vyas, who have filed separate PILs challenging the process of election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, should state that such process has led to How did it violate constitutional principles? The bench also asked the petitioners why the court should interfere in the legislative processes.
What is wrong in giving such advice by the Chief Minister?
The court said, does the Constitution bar the Chief Minister from giving advice to the Governor without the help of the cabinet? What is wrong in giving such advice by the Chief Minister? Eventually, the cabinet is also formed on the recommendations of the Chief Minister. When it comes to individual liberty, we will certainly be the custodians of the rights of citizens. But why should we interfere in legislative matters unless there is a serious violation? It doesn’t send a good message. What should be the mode of selection of speaker, should it be decided by the court?
The PIL, filed by Mahajan and Vyas through advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Abhinav Chandrachud, challenges the amendments made in December last year in Rule 6 and 7 of the MLA Rules for Election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. The PILs have claimed that these amendments give power to the Chief Minister alone to advise the Governor on such elections. Chandrachud informed the court that many states in the country provide for the cabinet and the chief minister to advise the governor for these posts.
The PILs have contended that the amendments brought by Maharashtra are arbitrary and unconstitutional. Chandrachud said that without the help and advice of the Council of Ministers a person cannot act on his own. One person cannot have sole authority. State’s Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni opposed both the PILs and said they were not maintainable. Kumbhakoni argued that if MLA Mahajan is personally aggrieved by the amendments, he should have filed a writ petition and not a PIL.
Expansion
The Bombay High Court on Friday asked BJP MLA Girish Mahajan and another petitioner to state whether it is constitutionally wrong to mandate the Chief Minister to advise the Governor on the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. There is provision. A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice MS Karnik observed that the petitioners Mahajan and Janak Vyas, who have filed separate PILs challenging the process of election of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, should state that such process has led to How did it violate constitutional principles? The bench also asked the petitioners why the court should interfere in the legislative processes.
What is wrong in giving such advice by the Chief Minister?
The court said, does the Constitution bar the Chief Minister from giving advice to the Governor without the help of the cabinet? What is wrong in giving such advice by the Chief Minister? Eventually, the cabinet is also formed on the recommendations of the Chief Minister. When it comes to individual liberty we will certainly be the custodians of the rights of citizens. But why should we interfere in legislative matters unless there is a serious violation? It doesn’t send a good message. What should be the mode of selection of speaker, should it be decided by the court?
The PIL, filed by Mahajan and Vyas through advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Abhinav Chandrachud, challenges the amendments made in December last year in Rule 6 and 7 of the MLA Rules for Election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. The PILs have claimed that these amendments give power to the Chief Minister alone to advise the Governor on such elections. Chandrachud informed the court that many states in the country provide for the cabinet and the chief minister to advise the governor for these posts.
The PILs have contended that the amendments brought by Maharashtra are arbitrary and unconstitutional. Chandrachud said that without the help and advice of the Council of Ministers a person cannot act on his own. One person cannot have sole authority. State’s Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni opposed both the PILs and said they were not maintainable. Kumbhakoni argued that if MLA Mahajan is personally aggrieved by the amendments, he should have filed a writ petition and not a PIL.