In a clear indication of an end to the prolonged stand-off between the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) Government and Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari over the nomination of 12 members to the State Legislative Council, Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and his Deputy Ajit Pawar will meet the Governor next week at the latter’s invitation and sort out the matters relating to the pending issue.
Koshyari, who has come in severe criticism from the ruling MVA constituents— Shiv Sena, NCP and Congress – for his inordinate delay in deciding on the State Cabinet’s recommendation to nominate 12 members to the State Legislative Council, has taken initiative to resolve the controversy that has arisen between him and the Uddhav Thackeray Government.
The Governor’s initiative comes after the Bombay High Court – while disposing of a PIL seeking its intervention over the Governor’s “inaction” in taking a decision on the Maharashtra Government’s recommendation made on November 6, 2020 -- expressed “hope and trust” that the Governor would discharge his Constitutional “without undue delay".
The Governor extended an invitation to both the chief minister and his deputy at the swearing-in ceremony of Justice Vidyasagar M. Kanade, former Judge of the Bombay High Court, as the new Lokayutka of Maharashtra organised at Raj Bhavan on Thursday.
Confirming the development, Pawar said that at Thursday’s ceremony, the Governor had invited the chief minister and him to visit Raj Bhavan once for a meeting with him on the pending nomination of 12 members to the State Legislative Council. “Following the invitation, the chief minister and I have decided to meet the Governor next week, after seeking an appointment for the meeting,” the deputy Chief Minister said.
The Governor’s invitation to the Chief Minister and DCM comes on the heels of a ruling given by the Bombay High Court on August 12. On that day, a HC division bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice G. S. Kulkarni had said: “Eight months, in fact, seems to be beyond reasonable time. This Court, having regard to the gravity of the issue involved and the necessity to fill up the vacant seats of members expeditiously as well as to sub-serve the aims set by the Constitution, would consider it eminently desirable if the obligation, in the present case, is duly discharged without undue delay”.
Holding that “the Governor is not answerable to the Court in view of Article 361 of the Constitution and no direction can be issued to the Governor”, the HC bench had said: “Before parting, this Court expresses hope and trust that things will be set right at an early date. If indeed, during the pendency of this writ petition, the Governor has acted on the advice of the Council of Ministers, in whatever way it was thought appropriate by him, that would take care of the petitioner’s concern completely. The Public Interest Litigation is, accordingly, disposed of with no orders as to costs”
In its earlier observation in the judgement, the HC bench averred: “This Court, therefore, concludes the judgment by making a public law declaration that the obligation, which the Constitution vests on the Governor to either accept or return the recommendations as made by the Council of Ministers forming part *of advice, has to be discharged within a reasonable time”.
In its remarks preceding its conclusion, the HC bench made some pertinent observations when it said: “The recommendations made by the Council of Ministers have become eight months old by the time this Court commenced hearing of this petition. If the saying that everything happens for a reason is to be believed, this Court ought to assume that there was/were genuine reason(s) for the Governor not to convey his decision earlier, whatever be the nature thereof”
“However, it is time that the impasse is resolved. It is mature, sensible and responsible governance, both at the Centre as well as in the States, that the people look up to. Should there be any misunderstanding or miscommunication between two Constitutional authorities/functionaries, right steps in the correct direction ought to be followed to obviate the same,” the HC bench observed.
“If there be minor differences of opinion, the same ought to be resolved in such manner as deemed fit and appropriate including, inter alia, a discussion between the Governor and the Chief Minister in the guiding spirit of the Constitution.
Indeed, if there are major differences, the same have to be made known for ironing out such differences,” the Judges noted.
“It is in such circumstances that this Court is of the clear view that the duty of the Governor to speak and to let the Chief Minister know his (the Governor’s) reservations about the recommendees, if at all, within a reasonable time has to be read in section 10(2)(c) of the 1950 Act read with clauses (3)(e) and (5) of Article 171 of the Constitution, or else the legislative intent would stand defeated. What would be a ‘reasonable time’, however, must depend on the facts of each case,” the HC bench
added.
It may be recalled that the high court had on May 22, 2021 issued a notice to the Governor demanding to know as to when he would decide on the recommendation of the state government for nomination of 12 members to the State Legislative Council.
The HC bench of Justices SJ Kathawalla and SP Tavade had asked Koshyari as to why he had not so far taken a decision on state’s government’s recommendation.
The HC bench had also directed that the Secretary of the Governor be made a respondent in the case and asked the latter to file his say in the matter by June 9 when the case would be heard next.
"We direct respondents to file an affidavit in reply setting out reasons for not acting on the representation submitted to the Hon'ble Governor of Maharashtra by the Council of Ministers for nomination to the Maharashtra Legislative Council under Article 171 (2) (e) and 171 (5) of the Constitution of India, and by what time the submission of the council of ministers, November 6, 2020, will be considered and disposed of," the HC bench had said in its order."He (the Governor) must decide it either way. This is something he has to do. He can't keep it in his drawer, not to see the light of day." Justice Kathawalla had said.
Interestingly, Bollywood actress Urmila Matondekar is one of the 12 persons in the State Legislative Council that have been recommended from the fields of Literature, Science, Arts, Cooperative sector and Social service, for nomination by the Governor as MLCs.