The legal tussle between the BJP-led parties and the Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress combine over government formation in Maharashtra pertains to a situation calling to "maintain democratic values" and "facilitate the fostering of the citizens' right of good governance", the Supreme Court said Tuesday.
The 3-party alliance, Maha Vikas Aghadi, raised questions concerning important constitutional issues "touching upon the democratic bulwark of our nation" and "there is no doubt that the contentions have to be answered", it said.
A bench comprising Justices N V Ramana, Ashok Bhushan and Sanjiv Khanna in the first para of the 19-page order spoke about the boundaries within which the apex court had to act in the situation over government formation.
"There is no gainsaying that the boundaries between the jurisdiction of Courts and Parliamentary independence have been contested for a long time.
"However, there is a need and requirement for recognizing institutional comity and separation of powers so as to tailor judicial interference in the democratic processes only as a last resort," the bench observed.
"This case pertains to one such situation, wherein this Court is called upon to adjudicate and maintain democratic values and facilitate the fostering of the citizens' right of good governance," it said.
It also noted that the situation was such that when both sides are agreeable to the conduction of a floor test, and an order directing it is not prejudicial to anyone, then there is no reason to defer the same.
The bench said: "At this interim stage, we may note that it is imperative for this Court to be cognizant of the need to take into consideration the competing claims of the parties, uphold the democratic values and foster constitutional morality."
The bench said similar view was expounded by Justice B P Jeevan Reddy in the celebrated nineJudge Bench decision of
"If only one keeps in mind the democratic principle
underlying the Constitution and the fact that it is the Legislative Assembly that represents the will of the people and not the Governor the position would be clear beyond any doubt. There could be no question of the Governor making an assessment of his own."