LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Subhash Desai vs. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors.

Not available · 2023 INSC 516Decided 11 May 2023
Not available
Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud · M.R. Shah · Krishna Murari · Hima Kohli · Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha

Background

In mid-2022, the Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress ("Maha Vikas Aghadi") coalition government in Maharashtra, led by Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray, faced a revolt when a large group of Shiv Sena MLAs led by Eknath Shinde broke away, each side claiming to be the "real" Shiv Sena and taking rival actions (removing/reappointing the party's Whip and Legislature-Party Leader, and seeking removal of the Deputy Speaker). Citing communications from dissenting MLAs and opposition leader Devendra Fadnavis, the Governor directed Thackeray to prove his majority through a floor test; rather than face it, Thackeray resigned, after which the Governor invited Shinde to form a new government with the BJP. Several writ petitions were filed under Article 32 challenging the Governor's actions, the Speaker's recognition of Shinde's faction's Whip, and related questions, and the case required revisiting the Court's earlier ruling in Nabam Rebia on a Speaker's power to decide disqualification petitions during a pending removal notice against him.

Decision Breakdown

The Constitution Bench held: (1) the correctness of Nabam Rebia should be examined by a larger seven-judge bench, but pending that, the Court itself would not ordinarily decide Tenth Schedule disqualification petitions in the first instance: that is for the Speaker to do within a reasonable time; (2) an MLA facing a disqualification petition may still participate in House proceedings, and such proceedings are not automatically invalid pending that petition's outcome; (3) it is the political party, not the "legislature party," that has the power to appoint the Whip and Leader, so the Deputy Speaker's recognition of the Shinde-faction's whip (Bharat Gogawale) on 3 July 2022 was contrary to law, and the Speaker must instead recognise office-holders duly authorised under the Shiv Sena's party constitution; (4) crucially, the Governor was not justified in calling for a floor test, because he lacked objective material showing Thackeray had actually lost majority support: mere dissent by some MLAs, their request for restored security, or a rival faction's letters were not sufficient grounds; (5) despite this finding, the Court declined to restore the earlier Thackeray-led government, because he had voluntarily resigned before facing the floor test rather than being defeated in it, and courts cannot undo a voluntary resignation; and (6) the Governor was nonetheless justified in inviting Shinde to form the government once Thackeray resigned, and Shinde's appointment as Chief Minister was not barred by Article 164(1B) since no disqualification against him had been adjudicated by the Speaker.

Lesson Learnt

A Governor's power to order a floor test is not unlimited discretion. It requires objective, verifiable material showing an actual loss of majority, and cannot be invoked merely because a faction of a ruling party expresses discontent; but this legal safeguard cannot revive a government whose leader chose to resign rather than face that test, illustrating how procedural choices by political actors can have irreversible constitutional consequences even where an error by another authority is found.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupreme Court of India

Federation of Medical and Sales Representatives Associations of India & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

This is an interim order, not a final judgment. The Court recorded the Union of India's proposal to set up a fresh three-member Committee to examine the issue and recommend a regulatory or statutory framework. It directed the Union to constitute the Committee within two weeks, directed the Committee to consult the petitioners, intervenors and other stakeholders and report within two months of its first meeting, and asked the Union to file a compliance affidavit. Citing the separation of powers, the Court declined to decide for itself whether the Code should become law, and listed the matter on 29 January 2027.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Sirajuddin Qureshi & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court held that a bank's fear that the petitioners might flee, or its unresolved financial claim, cannot by itself justify keeping an LOC alive indefinitely, especially where the petitioners' bail conditions impose no travel curbs and their track record shows no misuse. It quashed the LOCs issued at the banks' instance, while leaving the LOCs issued at CBI's instance to be addressed through an application before the trial court (since those criminal proceedings are still pending there).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Lawyers Voice vs. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch, holding that no exceptional circumstance justified registering further FIRs, setting up an independent investigative mechanism, ordering wholesale further investigation into police conduct, issuing blanket evidence-preservation directions, or granting further compensation or rehabilitation directions. It noted that more than six years had passed since the riots, that compensation had largely been disbursed, and that statutory remedies remained available to victims. The Court made clear this was without prejudice to any individual's right to pursue remedies in law, and dismissed the petitions with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Shayaan Mujeeb vs. State & Ors. and connected matters

The Court dismissed the entire batch of petitions after finding that the allegations about the December 2019 events had already been examined by a competent statutory body and were being investigated under the ordinary criminal law, with related proceedings pending before competent courts. The Court held there was no ground for an independent inquiry mechanism, transfer of investigation, registration of new criminal cases, award of compensation, fresh guidelines, or further consequential directions. It also held that Article 226 of the Constitution is meant for enforcing enforceable legal rights, not for open-ended directions. The petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs, and any individual may still pursue remedies available in law.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Pushpendra Singh Parmar vs. President/Vice President/General Secretary, ICSI

The Court held that the dispute was, at its core, a personal grievance between the petitioner and a private company (UC Web Mobile Pvt. Ltd.), not a matter properly brought before the Court under Article 226's extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It held that Article 226 is not meant to be a forum for airing personal disputes or pursuing a private adversary merely because a representation went unanswered. The petition was dismissed, with liberty given to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies directly against the company.

Decided 29 Sept 2026Read case
Constitutional LawDelhi High Court

Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.

Relying on its own 2025 ruling on a near-identical earlier notification concerning the same drug combination, the Court held that since the notification used the word "shall" without any express provision for retrospective effect, and took effect only upon Gazette publication, it operates prospectively from 18.08.2026 and cannot be applied to stock manufactured earlier. The Court disposed of the petition on terms: Glenmark must label all stock made after 18.08.2026, publish clear public notices in one English and one Hindi national newspaper and issue advisories to doctors, chemists and retailers within two weeks, and file an affidavit detailing pre-notification stock within four weeks, subject to which no coercive recall action under Section 28B would be taken against it.

Decided 18 Sept 2026Read case