The matter of difference between the Chief Minister and the Governor in Maharashtra has now reached the Bombay High Court. On Wednesday, the High Court made a strong comment on this issue and said that it would be appropriate for the two constitutional leaders to sit together and settle the differences. In fact, the court’s stern remarks came when it was talking about two PILs filed through advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Subhash Jha.
A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice MS Karnik said that it is the misfortune of Maharashtra that people holding the two highest constitutional posts of the state do not trust each other. The reference of the bench was towards the Chief Minister of the state Uddhav Thackeray and Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari. The bench said that it would be appropriate for both the constitutional leaders to sit together and settle these differences.
The court’s oral remarks came when it was referring to the governor’s inaction on the nomination of 12 members to the Maharashtra Legislative Council eight months after the high court’s verdict. However, during this time the court did not directly name the governor. The election process for the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly was challenged by two PILs.
Thereafter, the court dismissed both the petitions holding that the procedure as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution does not violate the fundamental right of citizens to equality before law. The petition in this case was filed by BJP MLA Girish Mahajan and another person Janak Vyas. Apart from this, the court ordered forfeiture of deposits made by both the persons.
At the same time, the High Court reprimanded the petitioners and said that how the people of the state are being affected by the election of the Speaker. The petitioners will have to work very hard to prove this. After the stern remark, the High Court asked the question that ask the public who is the Speaker of the Lok Sabha? How many people are there in this court who will be able to answer? The public is least interested in who will be the Speaker of the Assembly.
On the whole issue, the court said that you have to show whether the issue is worthy of public interest litigation or not? Speaker is only the Speaker of the legislature? Where is the public interest in all this? The court said all these things in a PIL filed by BJP MLA Girish Mahajan, who said that the Maha Vikas Aghadi government of Maharashtra is throttling democracy by changing the rules related to the election of the Speaker of the Assembly.