HC refuses to stay cabinet decision recommending Thackerays appointment to legislative council

The Bombay High Court refused to grant interim relief to BJP’s Ramkrishnan Pillay, who sought a stay on the April 9 decision of the Maharashtra cabinet recommending

The Bombay High Court refused to grant interim relief to BJP’s Ramkrishnan Pillay, who sought a stay on the April 9 decision of the Maharashtra cabinet recommending the nomination of chief minister Uddhav Thackeray to the state legislative council to the Governor. The cabinet meeting was held as the nomination has to be done within six months of the election of Thackeray as the chief minister.

HT Image

The single bench of justice S J Kathawalla was hearing the petition filed by Ramkrishnan Pillay, a social worker and an acclaimed sportsman who is affiliated to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and is a member of the Working Committee of BJP in the State of Maharashtra. In his petition Pillay not only challenged the April 9 decision of the cabinet of ministers but also the very meeting itself as it was convened by deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar.

Pillay submitted that as the meeting was convened by Pawar without getting the consent of the chief minister and that the post of deputy chief minister was only a formal post and did not have any authority to convene such meetings, hence the meeting convened by Pawar was not valid, thus the decision taken by the cabinet also was not valid and hence should be set aside.

On April 9, the cabinet had decided to recommend the name of Thackeray to be appointed to one of the two vacant posts on the legislative council. The posts were to be filled through the nomination by the Governor based on the recommendation of the cabinet.

As per the Constitution, Thackeray has to become a member of the legislative council within six months of his appointment as chief minister or else he would cease to hold the post. It was submitted that on account of the pandemic, it was unlikely that the elections for Legislative Council would be held hence the cabinet of ministers arrived at the proposal.

Advocate general Ashutosh Kumbhakoni submitted that the petition was not maintainable.

After hearing the submissions, the court held that as the Governor had not taken a decision on the recommendation by the cabinet it was too premature to pass any orders on the same. The court further held that the Governor was empowered to decide on the validity of the proposal by the cabinet.

“In my view, the Court’s interference at this stage is not at all required since any such interference at this stage would amount to preventing the Hon’ble Governor from taking an independent decision inter alia qua the validity of the proposal received by him. The reliefs sought in the Writ Petition therefore appear to be premature. The Petitioner at this stage is not entitled to any urgent reliefs.”