---

Eknath Shinde v. Uddhav Thackeray: Supreme Court Judgment on Maharashtra Political Crisis (2022)

# 1. Introduction

In 2022, Maharashtra witnessed a significant political upheaval due to a split within the Shiv Sena party
between two factions led by Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray. This led to a change in the state
government, causing national attention. The Supreme Court of India intervened to resolve the crisis,
resulting in a landmark judgment that upheld the Governor’s decision to invite Eknath Shinde to form
the government and refused to quash Uddhav Thackeray’s voluntary resignation.

# 2. Background and Facts

- Formation of Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA): In 2019, Shiv Sena, alongside the Nationalist Congress Party
(NCP), Indian National Congress, and certain independent MLAs, formed the Maharashtra government
under the coalition named Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), with Uddhav Thackeray as Chief Minister.

- Factional Split: In June 2022, reports surfaced of Shiv Sena MLAs meeting with BJP leaders, leading to a
split within the Shiv Sena Legislature Party (SSLP). Eknath Shinde was appointed as the Group Leader,
while Sunil Prabhu became the Chief Whip.

- Political Crisis: The split resulted in conflicting claims to represent Shiv Sena, leading to political
instability. Uddhav Thackeray resigned as Chief Minister before the floor test, paving the way for Eknath
Shinde to form a new government with BJP’s support.

- Supreme Court Intervention: The matter escalated to the Supreme Court, which constituted a five-
judge Constitution Bench comprising Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (CJI), M.R. Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli,
and P.S. Narasimha JJ., to adjudicate on the constitutional validity of the Governor’s actions.

# 3. Legal Issues Presented

1. Governor’s Decision: Whether the Governor’s invitation to Eknath Shinde to form the government was
constitutionally valid.

2. Resignation of Uddhav Thackeray: Whether Uddhav Thackeray’s voluntary resignation before the floor
test could be quashed.

3. Disqualification under Tenth Schedule: The jurisdiction of the Speaker in disqualifying MLAs under the
Tenth Schedule (Anti-defection Law).

4. Symbol Order and ECI’s Authority: The Election Commission of India’s (ECI) power to determine party
splits and symbols in light of internal party disputes.

# 4. Relevant Constitutional Articles and Sections

- Article 145(3): Empowers the Supreme Court to constitute a larger bench for deciding constitutional
matters.

- Article 179(c): Grants the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly the authority to decide questions
regarding the disqualification of MLAs under the Tenth Schedule.

- Article 191(2): Disqualifies a member of the Legislative Assembly if they are disqualified under the
Tenth Schedule.

- Article 190(3): Declares that a disqualified MLA's seat becomes vacant.

- Tenth Schedule of the Constitution (Anti-defection Law): Prevents political defections and governs the
disqualification of elected members.

- Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Provides for divorce by mutual consent with a
mandatory six-month cooling-off period between two motions.
- Article 142 of the Constitution: Grants the Supreme Court broad discretionary powers to pass orders
necessary for doing complete justice in any case or matter.

# 5. Key Judgments Cited

1. Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli (2006) 4 SCC 558:

- Recognized irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce under Article 142.

- Emphasized the need to move beyond the fault theory to prevent unnecessary prolongation of
suffering.

2. Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel (2010) 4 SCC 393:

- Held that Article 142 cannot be used to waive the statutory six-month waiting period under Section
13-B(2) unless exceptional circumstances exist.

3. Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (2017) 8 SCC 746:

- Clarified that the six-month waiting period is directory and can be waived under Article 142 if justified
by the circumstances.

4. Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India (1998) 4 SCC 409:

- Defined the scope of Article 142, emphasizing that it cannot override substantive law unless
absolutely necessary.

5. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303:

- Allowed the quashing of criminal proceedings if a settlement was reached, reinforcing the role of
Article 142 in ensuring complete justice.

# 6. Judges Involved

- Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud (Chief Justice of India)

- M.R. Shah (Justice)

- Krishna Murari (Justice)

- Hima Kohli (Justice)

- P.S. Narasimha (Justice)

# 7. Detailed Analysis of the Judgment

a. Governor’s Decision to Invite Eknath Shinde

- Justification: The Governor acted based on the support Eknath Shinde had from the majority of MLAs,
including the BJP and certain independents.

- Constitutional Validity: The Supreme Court upheld the Governor’s decision, stating it was within
constitutional bounds as long as it was based on the majority support in the Assembly.

b. Voluntary Resignation of Uddhav Thackeray

- Court’s Stance: The Supreme Court refused to quash Uddhav Thackeray’s resignation, recognizing it as a
voluntary act before the floor test.

- Reasoning: Since the resignation was submitted voluntarily and without any coercion, the Court
deemed it valid and not subject to judicial intervention.

c. Disqualification Under the Tenth Schedule

- Speaker’s Jurisdiction: The Court emphasized that the Speaker must follow the procedures under the
Tenth Schedule and cannot act independently to adjudicate disqualification petitions without proper
adherence to legal provisions.

- Reconsideration of Nabam Rebia’s Case: Directed a larger bench to reconsider aspects of

disqualification petitions, ensuring that procedural fairness is maintained.

d. Symbol Order and ECI’s Authority

- ECI’s Role: The Court clarified that the Election Commission has the constitutional authority to
adjudicate party splits and symbol allocations, and this authority cannot be indefinitely stayed pending
other legal decisions.

- Independent Functions: Decisions by the ECI and the Speaker are based on different considerations and
serve different purposes, thus one does not override the other.

e. Scope of Article 142

- Complete Justice: Under Article 142, the Supreme Court has the discretionary power to ensure
complete justice in matters where procedural lapses or exceptional circumstances necessitate
intervention.

- Limitations: While broad, Article 142 cannot be used to override substantive law or act contrary to
fundamental principles of public policy.

# 8. Legal Principles and Theories Applied

- Doctrine of Complete Justice: The Court’s power under Article 142 is to ensure that justice is fully
served, even if it means overriding procedural norms in exceptional cases.

- Anti-defection Law: Upholding the integrity of political parties by enforcing the Tenth Schedule,
preventing splits from undermining democratic processes.

- Judicial Restraint and Deference: While the Court has broad powers, it exercises judicial restraint by
respecting the roles of constitutional authorities like the Governor and the Speaker, intervening only
when procedural or constitutional norms are breached.

- Separation of Powers: The judgment reinforces the separation of powers by delineating the roles and
authorities of the judiciary, executive (Governor), and legislative (Speaker) branches.

# 9. Implications and Significance

- Political Stability: The judgment provided a constitutional resolution to the political crisis, ensuring
stability in Maharashtra’s governance.

- Strengthening Article 142: Reinforced the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring complete justice,
particularly in complex political and constitutional matters.

- Upholding Anti-defection Law: Emphasized the importance of adhering to the Tenth Schedule, thereby
safeguarding the democratic fabric from internal party splits.

- Role of Constitutional Authorities: Clarified the extent of the Governor’s discretion and the Speaker’s
jurisdiction, ensuring that constitutional and procedural protocols are followed.

- Judicial Precedent: Established key precedents on the interplay between constitutional provisions and
statutory laws in resolving political disputes.

# 10. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Eknath Shinde v. Uddhav Thackeray is a landmark decision that
addressed the constitutional validity of the Governor’s actions during a political crisis. By upholding the
Governor’s invitation to Eknath Shinde and refusing to quash Uddhav Thackeray’s resignation, the Court
reinforced the principles of separation of powers, judicial discretion, and political stability. Additionally,
the judgment clarified the roles of constitutional authorities and the scope of Article 142, setting
important legal precedents for future political and constitutional disputes.

---

# Key Takeaways for LLM Entrance Exam Preparation

1. Understanding Article 142: Grasp the breadth and limitations of the Supreme Court’s discretionary
power to do complete justice.
2. Anti-defection Law (Tenth Schedule): Know the provisions, Speaker’s jurisdiction, and how splits within
political parties are managed.

3. Role of Constitutional Authorities: Recognize the roles of the Governor and Speaker, and how their
decisions interact with judicial oversight.

4. Judicial Principles: Familiarize yourself with doctrines like separation of powers, judicial restraint, and
deference.

5. Case Law Precedents: Be aware of landmark cases like Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, Manish Goel v.
Rohini Goel, and Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, which shape the interpretation of
constitutional and statutory provisions.

6. Political Crisis Resolution: Understand the judicial mechanisms available for resolving political crises,
ensuring constitutional propriety and stability.

By comprehensively understanding these aspects, you will be well-prepared to tackle questions related
to constitutional law, judicial discretion, and political crises in your LLM entrance examinations.

Based on the Eknath Shinde v. Uddhav Thackeray judgment and the details provided earlier, here is a list
of multiple-choice questions (MCQs) with answers, aligned with the CLAT LLM pattern. These questions
focus on the legal principles, constitutional provisions, and key judgments related to the Maharashtra
political crisis:

---

# 1. Under which Article of the Constitution did the Supreme Court refer the Maharashtra Political Crisis
to a five-judge Constitution Bench?

A. Article 32

B. Article 145(3)

C. Article 136

D. Article 142

Answer: B. Article 145(3)

---

# 2. Which constitutional provision deals with disqualification of a member of the Legislative Assembly
under the Anti-defection law?

A. Article 190(3)

B. Article 191(2)

C. Article 174

D. Article 356

Answer: B. Article 191(2)

---

# 3. What is the primary legal issue discussed in the case of Eknath Shinde v. Uddhav Thackeray?

A. Anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule

B. Judicial appointments in Maharashtra

C. Freedom of speech of MLAs

D. Disqualification of MPs under Article 102

Answer: A. Anti-defection law under the Tenth Schedule

---

# 4. What was the Court's decision regarding Uddhav Thackeray's resignation as Chief Minister before
the floor test?

A. The resignation was quashed.

B. The resignation was upheld as voluntary.

C. The resignation was forced by the Governor.

 D. The resignation was declared unconstitutional.

Answer: B. The resignation was upheld as voluntary.

---

# 5. Which Article of the Constitution allows the Governor to call for a floor test?

A. Article 174

B. Article 356

C. Article 175(2)

D. Article 169

Answer: C. Article 175(2)

---

# 6. Which case's reconsideration was referred to a larger bench due to its relevance to the Maharashtra
Political Crisis judgment?

A. Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu

B. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker

C. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala

D. Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel

Answer: B. Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker

---

# 7. What does Article 142 of the Indian Constitution grant the Supreme Court?

A. Power to enforce fundamental rights

 B. Power to decide on federal disputes

C. Power to do complete justice

D. Power to remove the Speaker

Answer: C. Power to do complete justice

---

# 8. Under which Schedule of the Indian Constitution does the Anti-defection law exist?

A. Seventh Schedule

B. Eighth Schedule

C. Tenth Schedule

D. Ninth Schedule

Answer: C. Tenth Schedule

---

# 9. Which of the following was held by the Supreme Court regarding the Speaker's power under the
Tenth Schedule in the Eknath Shinde case?

A. The Speaker has unlimited discretion.

B. The Speaker must act according to party directives.

C. The Speaker’s power is subject to judicial review.

D. The Speaker’s decision is final.

Answer: C. The Speaker’s power is subject to judicial review.

---
# 10. Which political party split during the Maharashtra Political Crisis, leading to the Supreme Court
case?

A. Indian National Congress

B. Nationalist Congress Party

C. Shiv Sena

D. Bharatiya Janata Party

Answer: C. Shiv Sena

---

# 11. The term 'thereupon' under Article 190(3) signifies the disqualification of an MLA from the
Assembly starting from:

A. The date of the Speaker's decision.

B. The date of filing a disqualification petition.

C. The date of the MLA’s election.

D. The date of the MLA’s resignation.

Answer: A. The date of the Speaker's decision.

---

# 12. What is the role of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in relation to party symbols in cases of
political splits?

A. The ECI determines party symbols during elections.

B. The ECI has no role in party symbols.

C. The ECI resolves disputes over party symbols and factions.

D. The ECI assigns new symbols to all political parties.

Answer: C. The ECI resolves disputes over party symbols and factions.
---

# 13. In the Maharashtra Political Crisis, which faction of the Shiv Sena did the Governor invite to form
the government?

A. Uddhav Thackeray's faction

B. Eknath Shinde's faction

C. Nationalist Congress Party

D. Indian National Congress

Answer: B. Eknath Shinde's faction

---

# 14. Under which Article of the Constitution does the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly have the
authority to decide on disqualification petitions?

A. Article 179(c)

B. Article 190(3)

C. Article 191(2)

D. Article 163

Answer: A. Article 179(c)

---

# 15. The Supreme Court ruled that the Speaker's recognition of Eknath Shinde as the Leader of the Shiv
Sena Legislature Party was:

A. Constitutional

B. Unconstitutional

C. Undetermined
 D. Subject to the Governor’s discretion

Answer: B. Unconstitutional

---

# 16. What does Paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order allow the Election Commission of India to do?

A. Allocate election seats

B. Resolve disputes relating to party symbols

C. Remove political leaders

D. Dissolve the State Legislative Assembly

Answer: B. Resolve disputes relating to party symbols

---

# 17. The Supreme Court referred the reconsideration of the Nabam Rebia judgment to a larger bench
because:

A. It overruled the Anti-defection law.

B. It needed further interpretation on the Speaker's power.

C. It contradicted the Tenth Schedule.

D. It dismissed the role of the Governor.

Answer: B. It needed further interpretation on the Speaker's power.

---

# 18. Under the Tenth Schedule, which of the following is NOT a defense available to MLAs facing
disqualification?
 A. Merger of the party

B. Split in the party

C. Expulsion from the party

D. None of the above

Answer: B. Split in the party

---

# 19. Which Article of the Constitution gives the Governor the power to summon or prorogue the
Legislative Assembly?

A. Article 174

B. Article 179

C. Article 163

D. Article 191

Answer: A. Article 174

---

# 20. In the Supreme Court's decision, it was held that Uddhav Thackeray’s resignation was:

A. Forced by Eknath Shinde

B. A result of the Governor's directive

C. Voluntarily submitted

D. Quashed by the Speaker

Answer: C. Voluntarily submitted

---
These questions are designed to help law students familiarize themselves with the key legal principles,
constitutional articles, and relevant judgments arising from the Maharashtra Political Crisis. This type of
understanding is crucial for CLAT LLM exam preparation, where knowledge of recent landmark cases and
constitutional interpretation is tested.