BJP's Chitra Wagh slams Uddhav Thackeray after Supreme Court verdict

After an 11-month power struggle in Maharashtra, the Supreme Court has delivered its verdict. Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud announced the decision, which included significant comments on various issues that have drawn the attention of the Eknath Shinde-led government, the Maha Vikas Aghadi constituents, Uddhav Thackeray's party, and the political community at large. While the verdict has surprised the Shinde group, it ultimately provides some relief to Shiv Sena.

In a tweet following the Supreme Court's ruling, BJP leader Chitra Wagh launched a scathing attack on Uddhav Thackeray, saying, “Uddhav Thackeray had told the Supreme Court that the verdict would reveal who is the crow and who is the cuckoo. Now it has been proven. Who is the crow and who is the cuckoo? The crow continued to caw, but the cuckoo received justice! This is a victory for democracy! There will be a Shinde-Fadnavis government in the state! Congratulations, congratulations, congratulations!!!”

उद्धव ठाकरेंनी सुप्रीम कोर्टात सांगितलं होतं की कावळा कोण आणि कोकीळा कोण हे निकालातून कळेल….@OfficeofUT

आता हे सिद्ध झालंच … कावळा कोण आणि कोकिळा कोण?

कावळा काव काव करत राहीला पण कोकीळेला न्याय मिळाला !

लोकशाहीचाच हा विजय!

राज्यात शिंदे-फडणवीस सरकारच राहणार!
अभिनंदन,…

— Chitra Kishor Wagh (@ChitraKWagh) May 11, 2023

The Supreme Court has declared the appointment of Bharat Gogawale by the Shinde group as chief whip of the Shiv Sena party as illegal. The court also referred to the 2016 Nabam Rebia case and has referred the issue related to the powers of the Speaker on the disqualification of MLAs to a larger bench of seven judges.

The case was heard by a five-judge Constitution bench consisting of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, and pertains to a batch of pleas, including one seeking the disqualification of 16 Shiv Sena MLAs who revolted against the Thackeray leadership.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has directed its attention to the powers of the Governor, stating that the Governor does not necessarily need to call for a floor test to resolve political crises. The court has also noted that the use of a floor test to resolve intra-party disputes may not be appropriate and has recommended an alternative method of resolution through an impartial observer.