What is constitutionally wrong if CM advises guv on election of Maha Assembly Speaker? HC asks BJP MLA

PTI, Mar 4, 2022, 4:32 PM IST

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Friday asked BLP MLA Girish Mahajan and another petitioner to explain what was constitutionally wrong if the state rules provided for the chief minister to advice the governor with regard to the election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. A bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice M S Karnik said that the petitioners, Mahajan and Janak Vyas, who filed separate public interest litigations (PILs) challenging the procedure of election of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker, must explain how such procedure violated constitutional principles.

The bench also asked the petitioners why the court must interfere with legislative procedures.

”Does the Constitution bar the chief minister from giving advice to the governor without the aid of a council of ministers? What is wrong in the chief minister giving such advice? After all, the council of ministers too is constituted on the chief minister’s recommendations,” the court said. ”We will definitely be the guardians of the citizens’ rights when it comes to personal liberty. But why must we interfere in legislative matters unless there is a gross violation? It doesn’t send a good message. Is the manner of the Speaker’s choosing is a matter for the court to decide?” it said.

The PILs filed by Mahajan and Vyas, through advocates Mahesh Jethmalani and Abhinav Chandrachud respectively, challenge the amendments made in December last year to Rules 6 and 7 of the MLA Rules for the election of Speaker and Deputy Speaker. The PILs claim that these amendments provide for the chief minister alone to advice the governor on such elections.

Chandrachud informed the court that several states in the country provide for a council of ministers and the chief minister to advise the Governor for the said posts. The PILs stated that the amendments brought about by Maharashtra were ”arbitrary” and ”unconstitutional”.

”One person cannot act by himself of herself without the aid and advice of the council of ministers. The one individual cannot have the sole authority,” Chandrachud said.

The state’s counsel Advocate General Ashutosh Kumbhakoni opposed both PILs and said they were not maintainable. Kumbhakoni argued that if Mahajan, a BJP MLA, was personally aggrieved by the amendments, he should have filed a writ petition and not a PIL.

”The grounds of the petitioners are secrecy of votes. In my humble opinion, those are related to direct election where a member of the general public elects directly. The elector casts a vote in the Speaker’s election, so it is choosing and not so much as electing,” he said.

The court asked the petitioners to argue upon the constitutional provisions related to the issue on March 8, the next date of hearing.

It also asked Vyas to deposit by March 7, a sum of Rs 10 lakh to prove his bonafide, since, he was a sitting MLA and his role as a PIL petitioner seemed ”suspicious”.

The Maharashtra government has proposed to hold the election for choosing the legislative Assembly Speaker on March 9.