13 months on, MVA govt. awaits Governor’s decision on appointment of 12 MLCs
Despite over a year having passed since the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government recommended 12 names to be appointed as MLCs on the vacant seats
MUMBAI: Twelve seats of the Maharashtra Legislative Council (MLC) have been lying vacant for the last 17 months. Despite over a year having passed since the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government recommended 12 names to be appointed as MLCs on the vacant seats, governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari is yet to take a decision on these recommendations.
It was on November 6, 2020 that the state government approved 12 names and sent it to the governor for appointment. The 12 names included: Vijay Karanjkar, Urmila Matondkar, Nitin Bangude-Patil and Chandrakant Raghuvanshi from the Shiv Sena; Eknath Khadse, Raju Shetti, Yashpal Bhinge and Anand Shinde from the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP); and Rajni Patil, Sachin Sawant, Anniruddha Vankar and Muzaffar Hussain from the Congress.
Out of the 78 members of the state legislative council, 12 are nominated by the governor on the recommendation of the state government. These members are expected to be from different fields such as the arts, literature, sports, cooperation and social service.
Koshyari’s indecision has led to major friction between Raj Bhavan and the tripartite MVA government with Koshyari and the MVA leaders engaged in a war of words on several occasions. The matter was followed up by the state government when three months ago on September 1, chief minister Uddhav Thackeray led a three-member delegation to meet Koshyari and formally request him to take a decision. Deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar who was part of the delegation along with state revenue minister Balasaheb Thorat told reporters outside Raj Bhavan after their meeting with Koshyari, “We requested the governor to see if the decision is taken early as it would be helpful for the government when it comes to the functioning of the state legislature. We said it was our request that he accept the recommendation even though it was his right to take a decision.”
In July, the state government submitted an affidavit before the Bombay high court (HC) stating that the power of the governor to make these nominations does not fall in the category of discretionary powers conferred on the occupant of the top constitutional office. “It has been specifically submitted in the said communication (recommendation of 12 names as MLCs) that in the larger public interest and from the point of view of a healthy democracy as also the rich traditions that are meticulously observed in this regard, it is necessary to fill in these 12 vacant positions at the earliest,” the affidavit said. “The governor was requested to complete the process of nominating the 12 persons as MLCs at the earliest and at the most within 15 days,” the affidavit added. Significantly, the Bombay HC observed that the governor was constitutionally obligated to either accept or reject the proposal sent by the state government for appointing 12 legislators within a reasonable time.
It’s been four months since the HC made this observation on August 13 while disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed against the delay in making the appointments.
Constitutional experts are of the opinion that the appointments should have been made soon after the recommendations were made as it is binding on the governor to accept the advice of the council of ministers according to the constitution. They are also of the view that the President can be approached for the governor’s removal over dereliction of constitutional duties.
According to Ulhas Bapat, a constitutional expert, the position of the council of ministers and the governor is very clear in the constitution. Just like Article 74 of the constitution under which the advice of the Prime Minister is binding on the President, the advice of the chief minister is also binding on the governor under Article 163 of the constitution. The only difference in the case of the governor is of discretionary powers provided to the governor but they too are for implementing the constitutional duties and not for personal discretion.
“For instance, the governor has been given special responsibilities by the constitution which are specified between articles 371 and 371H where the chief minister’s advice is not binding on him. Except these, in all the remaining matters, the chief minister’s advice is binding on the governor. Thus, the appointment is purely the right of the state government and should have been made with immediate effect,” Bapat told Hindustan Times.
On his part, Sudhir Mungantiwar, former finance minister and senior BJP leader defended Koshyari’s stand saying that it is not binding on the governor to clear the appointments in the specific time period. Also, the Bombay high court did not direct Koshyari to take a decision in a specific time frame. “The high court did not prescribe any time frame as it is not in their jurisdiction to direct the governor to take the decision in a limited time. There are thousands of cases where the Bombay high court issues directives to the state government but they are not followed by the state government for years,” he commented.
Meanwhile, a query sent to the governor’s secretary Santosh Kumar and public relations office (PRO) on November 30 is yet to receive any response. They were asked if the governor has raised any query, which is not addressed by the state government leading to the delay.
