MLAs’ disqualification petitions: SC notice on Shiv Sena UBT plea accusing Speaker of ‘deliberate delay’

The bench, also comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Mishra, then went on to issue the notice and made it returnable in two weeks’ time.

The plea accused the Speaker of choosing to “deliberately delay” the decision on the petitions seeking disqualification of Shinde and other rebel MLAs who went with him last year. It pointed out that the Supreme Court had in its May 11, 2023 judgment on the Maharashtra Assembly crisis following the differences in the Sena given “categorical directions” to the Speaker “that the pending disqualification petitions must be decided within a reasonable period”.

“Despite…this…”, the Speaker “has chosen to not conduct a single hearing pursuant to the judgment…”, the petition said, adding “the Petitioner has also sent more than three subsequent representations dated 15th May, 2023, 23rd May, 2023 & 02nd June, 2023 to convene a hearing in the said disqualification matters, however, the Respondent Speaker in brazen disregard to his constitutional duties as a neutral arbiter, has sought to delay the adjudications of the disqualification petitions, thereby, permitting the illegal continuance of Eknath Shinde as Chief Minister, against whom the disqualification petitions are pending”.

The petition said “it is settled law that the Speaker while performing its functions under Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule, acts as a judicial tribunal, and is required to act in a fair and unbiased manner” and “the constitutional requirement of fairness enjoins upon the Speaker the obligation to decide the question of disqualification in an expeditious manner”.

“Any unreasonable delay on the part of the Speaker in deciding the petitions for disqualification contributes to and perpetuates the constitutional sin of defection committed by the delinquent members,” the petition said and added that the delinquent MLAs against whom disqualification petitions are pending “have committed brazenly unconstitutional acts which per se invite disqualification under…the Tenth Schedule”.

It contended that “the Speaker’s inaction in deciding the disqualification proceedings is an act of grave constitutional impropriety as his inaction is allowing MLAs who are liable to be disqualified to continue in the Assembly and to hold responsible positions in the government of Maharashtra including that of the Chief Minister”.

Referring to Supreme Court rulings, it said the court has laid down that “the Speaker occupies a constitutional office, and is required to rise above their political affiliations while performing the duties of the office…However, in the present case, the…Speaker…has clearly demonstrated by his inaction that he is incapable of discharging the function of the Speaker under the Tenth Schedule in a fair and unbiased manner”.

It urged the court to direct the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions expeditiously in a time-bound manner or alternately, to decide the petitions itself.