‘There was ambiguity over provisions of 10th schedule of Constitution’: Speaker Rahul Narvekar

A: Firstly, I welcome the Supreme Court judgment because it has upheld the necessity of maintaining constitutional discipline by recognising the fact that the petitions for disqualification on the grounds of defection can only be decided by the Speaker and he is the right person to decide this petition, as empowered by the Constitution of the country.

In this country, we have judiciary, the executives and the legislative and all the three have their defined roles and neither of them is expected to venture into the arena of the others. So, it has been rightly recognised by the court that the Speaker should take a decision and if at all someone is aggrieved by the decision, they can go for a judicial recourse and asking the court to decide at the first instance will not be appropriate.

Secondly, the court has interpreted certain provisions of the 10th schedule of the Constitution, which are with regards to who has the authority to appoint the whip — whether it is a political party or the legislative party. Earlier, there was ambiguity over the provisions of the tenth schedule, which the court has clarified.

So now, decisions can be taken if the need arises. The court has further gone ahead to state that the political party is the right forum to appoint the whip. However, in the present case, who really represents the political party and who has been authorised in the political party to issue the whip or who is in control of the political party are issues which have not been determined by the court and the apex court has expressed that the Speaker should determine this issue; once again giving powers to the Speaker or rather recognising the powers of the Speaker.

Q: Are you saying there was no clarity until now on the appointment of the party whip?

A: What I would like to say is that there was no interpretation of the provision on which party, legislative or political, should be considered. The court has held that the whip has been appointed only on the basis that he has been authorised by the legislature party. So, the court has recognised that it is not a legislative party but for a political party to decide.

However, the moment the court said so, it went a step ahead and said that in the current situation, who really determines or calls the shots in the political party has to be decided by the Speaker in accordance with the constitution of the party and with regards to relevant facts at that point of time. So, it is not that the court has said that the whip appointed by the Eknath Shinde-led faction is the legitimate one or that the whip appointed by the Uddhav Thackeray faction is the right one. The court did not give its opinion on that.

It said that the Speaker should decide on that and while deciding, he should do so based on the fact that the political party has the authority to appoint the whip. But who controls the political party has not been expressed by the court and neither has it given its view on that.

The interpretation that the court has said that a particular person is the legitimate whip is wrong. The court has left it to the Speaker to decide. They have said that Bharat Gogawale’s appointment on the basis that he represents the legislative party is not the correct position in law. Now, it will have to be determined whether the political party also wishes Gogawale as the party chief whip or if it is Sunil Prabhu.

Q: Which, according to you, is the real political party? The faction led by Uddhav Thackeray or the one headed by CM Eknath Shinde?

A: If the answer to this question would have been easy, the court would not have asked for an inquiry to be conducted. I will have to conduct an inquiry so that I can put facts on record, look at the facts on record and the political position in the state with regards to which faction the cadre is supporting. All these things have to be checked. The court has also ruled that a political party’s control should not be determined by a certain majority within the House but also beyond the Assembly.

Q: What will be your next step on the disqualification of MLAs?

A: Firstly, I will have to conclude as to who really represents the political party and who was really authorised to appoint the whip of the political party. Thereafter, I will consider each petition where I will give the opportunity of a hearing to every individual concerned with the petition.

In accordance with the principal of natural justice, since all the provisions of the CPC are applicable to such provisions, I will also allow them to lead evidence, allow examinations and cross examination and follow the provisions of the CPC and the endeavour shall be to complete the process in a reasonable time and expeditious manner. However, I will not rush and do things which could amount to miscarriage of justice.

Q: The EC has recognised the Shinde-led faction to be the real Shiv Sena. How would that affect while determining the political party?

A: That was done after the 2022 events so I will have to go back to the 2022 position and reconsider. The EC and the Speaker are different. I will have to consider the 2022 scenario which the EC has also considered and along with that, I will also have to consider what the court has said.