In the political circle: on the election of the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly

The Speaker’s post in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly had been vacant for nearly 17 months, but was filled by elections held within two days of the new regime coming to power. BJP’s Rahul Narvekar won by 164 votes in his favor and only 107 against, a difference indicating the extent to which Support that Chief Minister Eknath Shinde Now enjoying in the house. What helped Mr. Narvekar’s election was a change of heart on the part of Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari, who was refusing to set a date for the election. In a partisan manner that has become typical of governors, Mr. Koshyari has been citing the pendency of litigation relating to amendments to the Assembly Rules on the manner of electing a Speaker, so as to avoid fixing the date required by Rule 6. . Even though the Supreme Court has yet to dispose of an appeal in the matter, it seems that the governor quietly withdrew his objection and fixed the date for the election of the Speaker. It is noteworthy that as per the hypothesis of the changed rules, the election was held by open ballot. The BJP, while in opposition, favored a secret ballot in the election of the president, apparently in the hope that long before the revolt of the Shinde camp, some members of the party Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) The constituents will vote against the ruling coalition. On the other hand, former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray favored an open vote as a possible deterrent against crossvoting.

It is worth noting that the Constitution has no role for the Governor in the election of the Speaker, which is a prerogative of the House. It is only courtesy of the fact that the governor is part of the legislature that the rules of the assembly state that the governor will decide the date for the election of the speaker. This clearly means that the Governor will do so on the advice of the Council of Ministers, but the office bearers of the Raj Bhavan these days follow a distorted notion that they exercise power of their own free will. If a Governor feels that he has any opinion on the matter of fixing the date for the election of the Speaker, it is against the constitutional scheme and is a sign of playing a politically partisan role. Part of the problem was that the amended rule said the governor would fix a date “on the recommendation of the chief minister”, raising doubts whether this was a personal piece of advice. The Bombay High Court, however, observed that there was nothing to suggest that the CM’s opinion was not endorsed by his cabinet or that any constitutional provision has been violated. Since the erstwhile dissidents of Shiv Sena have emerged as the current rulers and shown their majority in the assembly, these controversies can no longer make sense. However, this again shows that constitutional functionaries never rise above the political realm.