SC reserves order on Sena-NCP-Cong plea for 10:30 am tomorrow

The Supreme Court on Monday will tomorrow pass orders on a petition filed by a coalition of Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party and the Congress that sought orders to the Devendra Fadnavis-led Maharashtra government to quickly face the floor test.

“If they have the majority, why should they fear the floor test,” said senior lawyer Abhishek Singhvi who appeared for the coalition of Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party and the Congress that had was giving final touches to its alliance to form the government last week.

Fadnavis, however, stumped the coalition’s efforts last week when he got himself an invite from governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari to form the government early Saturday morning. Fadnavis took oath as chief minister; NCP’s Ajit Pawar who pledged support of NCP lawmakers to the BJP was his deputy.

But NCP boss Sharad Pawar and his daughter, Supriya Sule insisted there had been a split in the party, that their party didn’t support the BJP and had Ajit Pawar removed as the NCP legislature party leader.

The three-party coalition next dashed to the Supreme Court that set up a special bench led by Justice NC Ramana and heard out lawyers for the three parties for a little less than 30 minutes on Sunday morning.

The three judges had ordered the government to produce the letter submitted by Devendra Fadnavis to stake claim and the governor’s order.

On Monday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Maharashtra Governor’s secretary, submitted the letters right at the start of Monday’s hearing, and insisted that the governor had acted like any reasonable person.

Mehta said the governor had received a letter from NCP legislature party chief Ajit Pawar pledging the support of his party MLAs to Fadnavis. Plus, the BJP had also produced letters of support from 11 MLAs.

As a result, governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari noted in his invite, Fadnavis had been able to show the support of 170 MLAs. “The governor had no reason to disbelieve him (Ajit Pawar)”, Mehta argued, asserting that he could not be expected to go on a fishing or roving inquiry.