SC asks Maharashtra govt to produce documents, adjourns hearing for tomorrow
Supreme Court bench directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to produce the order of the Governor and the letter of Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis showing support.
SNS | New Delhi | November 24, 2019 12:56 pm
After hearing NCP-Congress and Shiv Sena’s plea on “illegal” government formation in Maharashtra, Supreme Court on Sunday directed the Centre to produce the letters submitted by Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis to Maharashtra Governor Bharat Koshyari, claiming support of the MLAs and thereby staking claim to form the government and adjourned the hearing for 10.30 am on Monday.
NDTV reports, the petition filed by the NCP-Congress-Shiv Sena alliance read, “The Hon’ble Governor has acted in a partisan manner and has made a mockery of the high office of the Governor… the Governor’s actions between the intervening night of 22.11.2019 and 23.11.2019 culminating to the swearing in on the 23.11.2019 are a text book example of the Governor acting at the behest of a political party in power at the Centre.”
According to The Indian Express, Maharashtra BJP, advocate Mukul Rohatgi said, “There are some things that are with the President which are not even open to judicial intervention. There is no need for the court to pass the order today. There was no illegality in the Governor’s decision. The court should not pass the order to fix the date of the floor test. The three parties here have no fundamental rights. Can the court order the Governor to advance the floor test? The petition is without annexures, they don’t know anything, they were sleeping for three weeks. There is no supporting document to their claims.”
In poll bound Maharashtra, BJP leader and the State's Deputy Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis lashed out at the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance for allegedly yielding to demands from the Ulema Council, a Muslim clerical body.
This statement of John Stuart Mill brings to light a remarkable phenomenon, though uncommon, called ‘dissent’, i.e., ‘to differ in opinion or feelings’ or ‘to disagree.’ The Constitution of India realizing the essence and significance of dissent made this right available not only to our citizens but to our judges [Article 145].