Shiv Sena Split: Governor, Speaker and Whip Ruling (2023)

Governor Wrongly Called Floor Test, but Thackeray's Resignation Bars Restoring His Government: Constitution Bench

Published: 21 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A five-Judge Constitution Bench held that the Maharashtra Governor had no objective material to call on Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray to face a floor test, but declined to restore his government because he resigned instead of facing the vote. It held that the political party, not the legislature party, appoints the Whip, found the Speaker's recognition of the Shinde faction's Whip illegal, left the disqualification petitions to the Speaker and referred Nabam Rebia to seven Judges (paras 193-194, 206).

Key holdings

Nabam Rebia's view on Speakers facing removal notices is referred to a seven-Judge Bench (paras 70-71, 206).

This Court cannot ordinarily decide disqualification petitions at the first instance; the Speaker must decide them within a reasonable period (paras 80, 206).

The Speaker may recognise only the Whip appointed by the political party (paras 119, 124).

After the deletion of Paragraph 3, a 'split' is no defence to disqualification (para 164).

Pending disqualification petitions do not bar MLAs from voting in a floor test (para 195).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

In June 2022 the Shiv Sena legislature party split into factions led by Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde, which passed rival resolutions on its Leader and Chief Whip (paras 5-7). Disqualification petitions followed, and this Court extended the time to reply to them (paras 12-13). On 28 June 2022 the Governor asked Mr. Thackeray to face a floor test; he resigned, and Mr. Shinde was sworn in as Chief Minister on 30 June (paras 16, 19, 205). The newly elected Speaker recognised the Leader and Chief Whip of the Shinde faction (para 23). The petitions were referred to five Judges (para 32).

Court's Findings

The Speaker is the constitutional authority to decide the disqualification petitions, and no extraordinary circumstances justified this Court deciding them first (paras 85, 206). Members facing petitions may take part in the House, and disqualification operates prospectively, so the Speaker's election on 3 July 2022 stands (paras 92-93). The Whip and Leader are appointed by the political party, not the legislature party; recognising Mr. Gogawale as Chief Whip on a faction's resolution, without enquiry, was illegal (paras 111, 114, 119). Symbol proceedings before the Election Commission cannot be halted pending disqualification, and it need not rely on legislative majority alone (paras 148, 150). After the deletion of Paragraph 3, a 'split' is no defence; the Speaker must prima facie decide which faction is the party, using the party constitution and not mere numbers (paras 164, 167-168). The Governor had no objective material showing loss of confidence, and a floor test cannot settle intra-party disputes (paras 186, 188, 193). Restoration was refused because the resignation was voluntary (para 194), and inviting Mr. Shinde was justified (para 205).

Legal Principle

A Governor may call a floor test only on objective material showing that the government has lost the confidence of the House, never to resolve disputes within a party; under the Tenth Schedule the political party, not its legislators, appoints the Whip and the Leader (paras 111, 186, 188).

Precedents Relied Upon

Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly (2016) 8 SCC 1
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 32, 70, 206
Its view that a notice to remove the Speaker restrains disqualification proceedings is referred to a larger Bench as prima facie in conflict with Kihoto Hollohan.
Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu (1992) Supp (2) SCC 651
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 35, 82, 85
The Speaker is to be trusted to decide disqualification impartially, subject to judicial review.
Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya (2007) 4 SCC 270
Explained Discussed at ¶ 35, 86, 89
Its observation that disqualification relates back to the prohibited conduct was made to fix when a defence must exist; it does not make House proceedings subject to pending petitions.

View all precedents (6)

Mayawati v. Markandeya Chand (1998) 7 SCC 517
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 40, 110
Srinivasan J.: 'political party' in Paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Tenth Schedule cannot be read as the legislature party.
Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India (1972) 4 SCC 664
Explained Discussed at ¶ 42, 150, 151
Its use of the legislative-majority test under Paragraph 15 suited that case; the ECI may apply another test.
Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2020) 2 SCC 595
Explained Discussed at ¶ 83, 201, 203
Its rule that later events do not cure prohibited conduct does not bar Mr. Shinde's appointment under Article 164(1B) while petitions are pending.