Shiv Sena v. Union of India

Court

Supreme Court of India

Decided

26 November 2019

Case no.

W.P.(C) No.-001393 - 2019

Author

The Chief Justice

Facts

The background of the case stems from the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly elections held on October 24, 2019, where no party secured a majority. The BJP, being the single largest party, was invited by the Governor to form the government but declined due to a breakdown in its alliance with Shiv Sena. Subsequently, the Governor invited Shiv Sena to form the government, which was unsuccessful. The Governor then sought the NCP's willingness to form a government, which also did not materialize. On November 12, 2019, President's Rule was imposed. The President's Rule was revoked on November 23, 2019, and the Governor invited Devendra Fadnavis to form the government, leading to the petition by Shiv Sena and its allies.

Arguments

Petitioner Arguments

The petitioners argued that the Governor's invitation to Fadnavis was unconstitutional, arbitrary, and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. They contended that the coalition of Shiv Sena, NCP, and INC had the support of more than 144 MLAs and should have been invited to form the government instead. The court addressed these arguments by emphasizing the need for adherence to democratic principles and the importance of majority support in government formation.

Respondent Arguments

The respondents, including the Governor and Fadnavis, argued that the Governor acted within his constitutional powers to invite a party to form the government based on the political dynamics at the time. They maintained that the decision was made in good faith and in accordance with the constitutional provisions. The court scrutinized these arguments, ultimately finding that the Governor's actions did not align with the constitutional mandate of ensuring a government that reflects the majority's will.

Precedents considered

The judgment referenced several precedents related to the powers of the Governor and the principles governing the formation of government in a parliamentary democracy. Key cases included those that established the necessity for the Governor to act on the advice of the council of ministers and the importance of majority support in the assembly. The court applied these precedents to underscore the constitutional requirement for democratic governance.

Legal principles

The court considered several legal principles, including

• The separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.
• The constitutional mandate for the Governor to ensure that the government reflects the majority's will.
• The principle of institutional comity, which necessitates judicial restraint in political matters unless there is a clear violation of constitutional provisions.

Decision and reasoning

Rationale

The court's rationale centered on the need to uphold democratic values and the rule of law. It criticized the Governor's decision as lacking a constitutional basis and failing to recognize the majority support for the coalition of Shiv Sena, NCP, and INC. The court emphasized that the democratic process should not be undermined by arbitrary actions that disregard the electorate's will.

Outcome

The Supreme Court declared the Governor's action of inviting Fadnavis to form the government as unconstitutional and directed the Governor to invite the coalition of Shiv Sena, NCP, and INC to form the government. The court ordered that the coalition should be allowed to take the oath of office and that the necessary arrangements should be made promptly.

Conclusion

This judgment has significant implications for the interpretation of the Governor's role in the formation of state governments and reinforces the principle that the government must reflect the majority's will. It underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding democratic processes and ensuring that constitutional mandates are adhered to.

Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website (PDF)