Bombay high court dismisses PIL against Maharashtra governor’s withdrawal of 12 MLC nominations | Mumbai News

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the then Maharashtra Governor B S Koshyari’s September 2022 decision to withdraw 12 MLC nominations by the then chief minister Uddhav Thackeray-led MVA govt.
Last October, the HC concluded the hearing and reserved its judgment on the PIL filed by Shiv Sena (UBT) member and former Kolhapur corporator Sunil Modi. The PIL, argued by Advocate Sangram Bhosle, sought quashing of what it claimed was an “impermissible” decision of the Governor.
A division bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Amit Borkar, pronouncing its decision, said the PIL is dismissed for reasons discussed in the judgment. The judgment will be uploaded later.
As Maharashtra Governor, Koshyari approved the Eknath Shinde-led govt’s recommendation on September 5, 2022, to withdraw and return the 12 names suggested in October 2020 by the previous MVA govt.
Article 171 (5) of the Constitution requires nominated MLCs to comprise persons from specialised backgrounds and experiences, be it science, sports, art, and culture. The 12 posts remained vacant, and Modi said he thus petitioned for judicial intervention.
The petitioner argued before the HC that the Governor could not have acted as a “rubber stamp” and could have exercised his own discretion, rather than letting the posts remain vacant. The Advocate General Birendra Saraf for the state sought dismissal of the PIL. He argued that it lacked any legal basis and was “infructuous” as the Governor cannot act on the list which is already withdrawn by the subsequent regime.
The state, in its affidavit, said it was open for the council of ministers and the chief minister to withdraw the list of 12 names as nominated MLCs until the Governor accepts the names.
Following a Cabinet decision, then chief minister Eknath Shinde, by a letter dated August 23, 2022, requested the Governor to return the 2020 proposals to make way for new recommendations, and the Governor complied with it.
“The question as to what advice was given by the Council of Ministers and on what basis is not open to judicial scrutiny,” said the state’s affidavit.