The Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Maharashtra government to file its reply in ten days on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the September 5, 2022 decision of the former governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari withdrawing the 12 MLC nominations recommended by the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government in November 2020.
A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Arif Doctor has kept the PIL filed by Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) leader and former corporator of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation Sunil Modi for hearing on August 21. The posts of 12 Member of Legislative Council (MLC), to be nominated by the governor, have remained vacant for about three years.
Long due decision
Uddhav Thackeray-led MVA government had recommended a list of 12 names to the Governor as MLCs in November 2020. Since the Governor did not take any decision on it for a long time, a PIL was filed by Soli ratan Luth seeking that directions be issued to the Governor to decide on the same.
On August 13, 2021, the HC bench led by then Chief Justice Dipankar Datta had disposed of a PIL by Ratan Soli Luth saying that it is “desirable” that then Governor Koshyari decides on the 12 nominations at the earliest, since more than eight months had already passed. The bench had further observed that it was the governor’s obligation to accept or return recommendations made by the Cabinet within a “reasonable time”, and that seats in the “cannot be kept vacant indefinitely”.
After the government changed in 2022 and Eknath Sinde took over as the State Chief Minister. The new cabinet reportedly wrote to the Governor that they were withdrawing the pending list of 12 names submitted by the earlier government. On September 5, 2022, the Governor accepted the same and the list was returned to the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO).
Arguments by Kolhapur Municipal Corporator
Modi has challenged this before the HC raising a grievance against the Governor's refusal to act on nominations made to the Legislative Council of Maharashtra for an inordinately long period of 1 year and 10 months.
His counsel, Anil Anturkar, argued that the Governor ought to have paid heed to the August 2021 judgement of the high court. “Something which is said by the Court was not respected. That would not be proper. The division bench asked the governor to speak his mind,” Anturkar argued.
Advocate General Birendra Saraf opposed the petition and submitted that there was no embargo on a cabinet to recommend or withdraw recommendations.
“Today there is no recommendation before the Governor. The petitioner today cannot say that ‘recommendation is made, it should continue forever’. It is not his case that the Governor should have decided earlier,” Saraf argued.
HC asks govt to file detailed reply
He further said that the Governor returned the recommendation file as there was no other recommendation pending after withdrawal. “These are recommendations. It is not some change of policy. The same government can also change their recommendation. Once there is a change of government, the cabinet cannot be deprived of its power to reconsider,” Saraf added.
The HC has asked the government to file its detailed reply.
The PIL has sought that the September 2022 decision of the Governor be quashed. It has also sought that the court request the governor to either nominate the 12 members recommended for the Legislative Council on November 6, 2020, or return the recommendation with the reasons recorded.
Pending hearing of the PIL, Mosi has sought a stay on the appointment of MLCs to the 12 posts.
