New Delhi The Supreme Court on Tuesday took a swipe at the rapidly changing political affiliations in Maharashtra over the past two years, remarking that the state has perhaps made the term “Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” (loosely translated to “easy come, easy go”) seem feeble in comparison to its political landscape.
A bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and AG Masih made the observation while hearing a case related to the disqualification of Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) MLAs from Telangana who defected to Congress.
During the hearing, the court noted that the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, meant to curb political defections, is being rendered meaningless by prolonged inaction on disqualification pleas. “Aaya ram gaya ram originated from my brother’s (justice Masih’s) state (Punjab & Haryana) , but I feel Maharashtra has surpassed all other states in recent years,” the bench remarked, underscoring the scale of political upheavals in the state.
The bench asserted that it is of prima facie view that the hands of a constitutional court cannot be tied when it acts within the constitutional limits. “The 10th Schedule is meant to prevent ‘Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram’. It will be a mockery of the 10th Schedule if the courts were not to intervene,” it observed.
“Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” became a popular phrase in the Indian political system after an MLA from Haryana, Gaya Lal, changed his party three times on the same day in 1967. In the years that followed, defections by legislators resulted in the fall of several state governments, necessitating President’s Rule. The growing trend led Parliament to contemplate a law to curb the practice. Finally, in 1985, the Constitution was amended to institutionalise the concept of disqualification on the ground of defection and the 10th Schedule was added, which is commonly referred to as the anti-defection law. The law applied to both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
{{/usCountry}}“Aaya Ram, Gaya Ram” became a popular phrase in the Indian political system after an MLA from Haryana, Gaya Lal, changed his party three times on the same day in 1967. In the years that followed, defections by legislators resulted in the fall of several state governments, necessitating President’s Rule. The growing trend led Parliament to contemplate a law to curb the practice. Finally, in 1985, the Constitution was amended to institutionalise the concept of disqualification on the ground of defection and the 10th Schedule was added, which is commonly referred to as the anti-defection law. The law applied to both the Lok Sabha and state assemblies.
{{/usCountry}}The case before the bench revolved around the delay in deciding the disqualification petitions against three MLAs — Tellam Venkat Rao, Kadiyam Srihari, and Danam Nagender -- who defected from the Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) to the ruling Congress. Senior advocate CA Sundaram, representing BRS, argued that the MLAs in question had switched loyalties and that at least one of them had even contested the Lok Sabha elections on a Congress ticket while still being a BRS legislator. He contended that the courts must step in to ensure that disqualification pleas are decided in a timebound manner, adding that such matters should be settled within three months except under exceptional circumstances.
The bench, however, pointed out that a five-judge Constitution bench has held in the case relating to a split in the Shiv Sena that a fixed timeline could not be imposed on the Speaker. “Can we go beyond it while sitting in a two-judge bench combination?” asked the court, referring to its own limitations in altering precedent. Nonetheless, it asserted that “it will be a mockery of 10th Schedule if courts do not intervene in situations requiring immediate action”.
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Mukul Rohatgi represent the state and the Speaker’s office.
The court’s remarks come in the backdrop of the dramatic political shifts in Maharashtra, where a series of defections and realignments have changed the state’s governance multiple times in recent years. In May 2022, the Shiv Sena suffered a vertical split when Eknath Shinde, along with 38 other legislators, broke away from Uddhav Thackeray’s leadership and allied with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to form the government. The rebellion led to the collapse of the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government, which comprised the Shiv Sena, the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), and Congress.
In May 2023, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court invalidated the Maharashtra governor’s decision asking Thackeray to face a floor test but refrained from reinstating him as chief minister since he resigned voluntarily instead of facing a trust vote. The court also left the fate of the disqualification petitions against both Shinde and Thackeray factions to the assembly Speaker, Rahul Narwekar.
A few months later, in October 2023, the NCP also fractured, with Ajit Pawar leading a breakaway faction and joining the Shinde-led government as deputy chief minister. The Sharad Pawar faction of the NCP moved disqualification petitions against them, but the issue remained unresolved.
Meanwhile, Maharashtra headed to assembly polls in November 2024, where the newly formed Mahayuti alliance, comprising the BJP, the Shinde-led Shiv Sena, and the Ajit Pawar-led NCP, secured a sweeping victory, winning 235 out of 288 seats. BJP emerged as the dominant force with 132 seats, followed by Shiv Sena with 57, and NCP with 41. In the post-poll government formation, BJP’s Devendra Fadnavis took over as chief minister, while Shinde and Pawar retained their deputy CM positions.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Sundaram pressed the court on the issue, asking whether a constitutional authority like the Speaker could take unlimited time to decide such matters. He argued that a constitutional court must have the power to ensure that such decisions are taken in a reasonable time frame.
The bench, while agreeing that the issue was of significant importance, emphasised that it will have to closely look at the previous precedents, including the Shiv Sena case, before deciding whether a constitutional court could ask the Speaker to decide within a time frame and what can constitute a “reasonable period” for deciding disqualification pleas.
“We have one of the most vibrant democracies. And the experience in Maharashtra in the last five years shows only that…too many colours,” the bench noted in a wry reference to the state’s rapidly shifting political alliances.
The matter will be heard further next week, as the court deliberates on the extent of judicial intervention possible in cases where the Speaker delays decisions on disqualification pleas.