SC on Speaker’s action: ‘must only recognise the Whip appointed by political party’

“The Speaker was aware of the emergence of two factions in the legislature party on July 3, 2022 when he appointed a new Whip and a new Leader because the resolution of the respondents specifically mentions that a ‘split’ had occurred due to prevailing dissatisfaction in some MLAs of the Shiv Sena. Further, the fact that there were two resolutions appointing two different Whips and two different Leaders would no doubt have resulted in the Speaker inferring that there were two factions of the Shiv Sena,” the SC observed.

While reprimanding the Speaker for taking cognisance of only the resolution passed by Shinde group the SC stated that it was done “without undertaking an exercise to determine if it was a decision of the political party”.

“The Speaker did not attempt to identify which of the two persons who were nominated (including Sunil Prabhu from Thackeray group and Gogawale) were authorised by the political party. In a contentious situation such as this, the Speaker should have conducted an independent inquiry based on the rules and regulations of the political party to identify the Whip authorised by the Shiv Sena political party. The Speaker must only recognize the Whip appointed by the political party,” the SC noted.

After assuming office of Speaker on July 3, Narvekar cancelled the approval granted to Ajay Choudhari, MLA from Thackeray group, as Leader of the Shiv Sena Legislative Party (SSLP). He instead approved the appointment of Shinde in Choudhari’s place. Thereafter, he recognised Gogawale as the Chief Whip of SSLP.

Reacting to the SC ruling on the Speaker’s action while appointing the Chief Whip, Narvekar told The Indian Express that earlier there was ambiguity in the Tenth Schedule with regards to the provision of who has the authority to appoint the Whip, whether it is a political party or legislative party, which the SC has clarified now.

“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 legislative party. Earlier there was ambiguity in the Tenth Schedule with regards to this provision, which the court has clarified. So the court has recognised that it is not a legislative party but it is a political party to decide,” Narvekar, who is currently in London, told The Indian Express.

“However in the present case, who really represents the political party and who has been authorised in the political party to issue the Whip and who is in control of the political party, are issues which have not been determined by the court and the court has expressed that the Speaker should determine this issue, again giving powers to the Speaker or rather recognising the powers of the Speaker,” he added.

“It is not that the court has said that the Whip appointed by the Eknath Shinde-led faction or Whip appointed by the Uddhav Thackeray faction is the right one. The court did not opine on that. They have said that the Speaker should decide on that, but while deciding that he should decide with the fact that the political party has the authority to appoint the whip. But who controls the political party that also has not been expressed by the court or has given a view on that. The interpretation of what the court has said that a particular person is right Whip is wrong. The court has left it to the Speaker to decide. They have said that Gogawale’s appointment on the basis that he represents the legislative party, is not the correct position in the 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,” he said.