The Bombay High Court on Thursday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) that challenged the September 2022 decision by the Eknath Shinde-led government to withdraw 12 nominations for Members of Legislative Council (MLC), which had been recommended by the previous Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Atul Borkar ruled that the petition was “misconceived” and therefore “liable to be dismissed.”
The controversy stemmed from the November 2020 recommendations made by the MVA government for 12 MLC nominations, which were forwarded to the Governor. Following this, a PIL was filed in 2020, urging the Court to direct the Governor to take action on the pending list. The Court ruled last year that it was the constitutional duty of the Governor to either accept or return the names within a reasonable timeframe.
However, following the political upheaval and the shift in leadership with Eknath Shinde becoming the Chief Minister, the new state government formally withdrew the list of 12 nominations that had been pending. The new cabinet communicated its decision to the Governor, who accepted the withdrawal on September 5, 2022, and returned the list to the Chief Minister’s Office.
Sunil Modi, Area Head of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and member of the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray) faction challenged the Governor’s inaction and the subsequent withdrawal of the nominations. He argued that the Governor’s failure to act on the recommendations for nearly two years was unreasonable.
Modi also raised concerns about a new list of seven MLCs approved by Governor CP Radhakrishnan just before the announcement of the Maharashtra Assembly elections. He argued that the Governor could not approve these new names while the legal matter was still pending before the Court.
In his submission, Senior Advocate Anil Anturkar, representing Modi, argued that the Governor had disregarded the Court’s previous judgment, which had directed the timely decision on the nominations. “The authority failed to act for eight months, despite the Court’s polite directive for a decision. The Court had asked the Governor to take a position,” Anturkar said.
Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf, representing the state government, opposed the petition on the grounds of maintainability. He contended that there were no legal restrictions on the new cabinet withdrawing the earlier recommendations. “There is no pending recommendation before the Governor now. The petitioner cannot demand that a recommendation made earlier should continue indefinitely. The Governor returned the recommendation as it was withdrawn,” Saraf argued.
The Court, after hearing both sides, concluded that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it.
