In a Facebook post soon after he resigned as Maharashtra advocate-general on Tuesday morning, Shreedhar Aney cited “institutional stability” as the reason for his quitting. He was quite clear neither the governor nor the Chief Minister had asked him to resign — as the Shiv Sena, the ruling BJP’s ally, threatened to stall the Budget Session if Mr Aney wasn’t removed. This, the outgoing A-G argued, rightly, wouldn’t be in the state’s best interests. In Mr Aney’s view the A-G is not the government pleader but the “first lawyer” charged with defending the state’s interests. It was with this in mind that in his arguments he had highlighted the case of the Marathwada agricultural crisis, the plight of Vidarbha, and the need for these two regions to be separate states.
Conventionally, it is expected that those holding high constitutional office do not stray from the government’s line so as not to potentially embarrass the executive that appointed them. But Mr Aney did not stray from any line, as the subject of Marathwada statehood was not before the government. He spoke out as he is a man of conscience. The Shiv Sena was annoyed as it believes in an expansive Maharashtra.
If we look at history, President Rajendra Prasad and Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru differed sharply on the Hindu Code Bill. Neither had resigned. Indeed, the nation got to hear arguments from two men of stature, although Nehru’s was the progressive view on women’s rights. Transient politics mustn’t drive out reasoned social arguments.
