Fadnavis Defends Gokul Nominations, Says Maharashtra Government Has No Interest in Takeover

Responding to questions from the media during a press conference, Fadnavis said the appointment of government-nominated members had been approved by the state cabinet. He explained that leaders from all four local political parties, including the BJP, Shiv Sena, Nationalist Congress Party and Jan Surajya, had approached the government and highlighted a statutory complication concerning the institution.

Following their representations, the government sought the opinion of the Advocate General and held discussions on the matter before proceeding with the decision.

Fadnavis further clarified that the proposal was submitted after discussions among Deputy Chief Minister Sunetra Pawar, Deputy Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and himself. The proposal carried the signatures of all three leaders, he said, stressing that it was not initiated by any single political party but was a decision taken collectively by the government.

"This decision has been taken to fulfil our statutory responsibility. If there is no statutory deadlock there, the government will not intervene under any circumstances," Fadnavis said, dismissing the debate over whether any particular party was satisfied or unhappy with the decision.

Fadnavis also criticised the Congress, accusing the party of turning even cooperative institution elections into political issues. He said the Congress had reached a stage where it was attempting to give a political colour to elections within cooperative organisations. "They want to make it a political issue. We do not want to indulge in politics," he said.

Addressing the legal opinion obtained from former Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai, Fadnavis said the opinion had been based on the facts and documents presented by Bंटी Patil. He pointed out that the final paragraph of Gavai's opinion contained a caveat stating that the observations were based on the facts placed before him.

According to Fadnavis, the opinion did not mention that the Gokul chairman's election could not be conducted because the required quorum was unavailable. He claimed that the former Chief Justice had not been informed that neither of the two groups had enough members to meet the quorum requirement.

Explaining the circumstances that led to the government's intervention, Fadnavis said neither group had sufficient numbers to complete the quorum following the Gokul election. Since a chairman cannot be elected without the required quorum, the process had become difficult.

He said that when the first date for the chairman's election was scheduled, only one group was present, preventing the election from taking place. The matter subsequently reached the court, which directed that the election be held on the 10th. However, Fadnavis clarified that the court had not directed the authorities to conduct the election without a quorum. Therefore, if the quorum requirement was not fulfilled again, the election could not proceed.

Referring to Gokul's governing provisions, the Chief Minister said that if the chairman's election failed to take place on three occasions, all powers would revert to the Deputy District Registrar (DDR). In such a situation, elected representatives would lose their authority over the process. He said the provision allowing certain members to be nominated with voting rights had been introduced to address this situation.

Fadnavis described the issue as a statutory complication arising from the inability of either group to meet the quorum requirement. He rejected allegations that the state government wanted to capture control of Gokul, describing such suggestions as misplaced.

He also pointed out that Gokul was an institution primarily limited to one district, although it had a greater presence in certain talukas. He questioned why the state government would be eager to take control of an institution operating within such a limited geographical area.

The Chief Minister went further, saying that the government did not actually need to make the appointments if both groups were willing to sit together and resolve the dispute. He maintained that an agreement between the two groups would eliminate the need for government-nominated members.

"If both groups sit together and reach a decision, there will be no need for other people. If they resolve the matter among themselves, the government will not send anyone. The government has no interest in appointing anyone," he said.

Reiterating his position, Fadnavis said the government's only objective was to fulfil its statutory responsibilities. He argued that if a meeting were held without the required quorum, the authority would eventually return to the government through the DDR mechanism anyway.

He said the government had no interest in taking control of Gokul and described it as a good institution, while questioning why the state government would seek to capture it.

Fadnavis also referred to subsequent electoral developments to counter allegations that the Gokul dispute was part of a larger political strategy. He said the outcome of the Gokul election had no impact on state-level politics. In the subsequent Teachers' Constituency election, Congress MLA Bंटी Patil's candidate had finished fourth, while the BJP candidate had won.

He maintained that the Gokul issue should not be given a political interpretation and reiterated that the government had no political interest in the matter. According to him, if both groups resolve the dispute among themselves and no statutory crisis arises, the government would have no reason to intervene.

The Chief Minister's remarks underline the government's position that the nominations are intended to address the institutional deadlock over the chairman's election, while leaving the two rival groups with the option of resolving the matter through mutual agreement.