Supreme Court / No relief to Uddhav, Shinde not spared, understand Supreme Court's decision on Maharashtra dispute in 10 points

Supreme Court: There is currently no threat to the Shinde government in Maharashtra. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has referred the issue of the Shiv Sena dispute to a larger bench. While giving its verdict on Thursday, the bench said that we cannot restore the old situation in Maharashtra. We cannot cancel the resignation of Udd Thackeray because it was given voluntarily.

While giving the verdict, the Chief Justice has raised questions on the decision of the Governor and the Speaker. The court said that the governor did not act according to the constitution. The Governor should not have got involved in the party dispute. The court said that if Uddhav Thackeray had not resigned, he could have got relief. He did not even face the floor test. We cannot make Uddhav the Chief Minister.

10 big things about the Supreme Court's decision on the Shiv Sena dispute-

1. The Supreme Court said that Uddhav Thackeray did not face the floor test, so we cannot restore his government. Had Uddhav not resigned, there could have been relief.
2. Questioning the speaker's decision, the court said that it was not right to call Uddhav Thackeray for floor test. The governor trusted that Uddhav did not have a majority.
3. The Governor's decision was wrong that Uddhav Thackeray has lost his majority. The exercise of discretion by the Governor was not in accordance with the Constitution.
4. The CJI said, as far as the disqualification of the MLAs is concerned, it will be decided by the Speaker. It was not right to conduct floor test for internal dispute.
5. Floor test cannot be the medium of differences between different factions in a political party. The governor cannot enter such political arena where there are differences between two factions of the same party.
6. There was no such document in front of the governor in which it was said that he wants to topple the government. There was difference of opinion only in some decisions of the government.
7. The governor only had a letter claiming that the Uddhav government did not have the complete numbers. The Governor should have taken action on this.
8. If the decision of disqualification is made pending the decision of the ECI and the decision of the Election Commission would be retrospective and would be contrary to law.
9. In the Nabam Rebia case, the question should be referred to a larger bench. If there is a notice for the removal of the Speaker, can he settle the disqualification petition of the MLAs. This will be heard by a bench of 7 judges.
10. There was no such document in front of the governor in which it was said that he wants to topple the government. There was difference of opinion only in some decisions of the government.