Tenth Schedule can’t be used as weapon to silence party members: Speaker during NCP MLAs’ disqualification hearing

Narwekar said as an elected representative and Speaker, he observed political leaders and their parties, through a kaleidoscope: making and breaking into new forms, forging new alliances, undoing old relationships, striking out in unknown directions.

He went on to note, “This is in the very nature of politics as we see it unfolding before our eyes. It is the reality of politics today. Surely, every such action cannot qualify as defection within the meaning of the Tenth Schedule.”

Narwekar further noted that events that unfolded after the rival factions emerged in NCP on June 30, 2023 were “in the nature of intra-party dissent”.

Questioning the decision of Sharad Pawar and going against his wishes cannot be said to be an act of defection or of leaving the party, he said, adding that the party members expressing concerns against certain political behaviour of other members of the party would not constitute “defection” under the Tenth Schedule.

Holding that present petitions did not justify action under the Tenth Schedule, Narwekar opined that “petitioners cannot and should not use the provisions of Tenth Schedule as a weapon to silence or brow-beat the members, or to crush opposition.”

“It also underlines the insistence of the Election Commission to bring about changes in the Party Constitution to make it more democratic, by providing party cadres a platform to express themselves, and give them a voice in the party’s decision-making,” he added.

Narwekar stated that some members get expelled or suspended from the party for breach of party discipline due to their statements or unwarranted acts.

However, he noted, “Even the most extreme punishment of expulsion from the party would not have the effect of these members losing their seats in the House… The Tenth Schedule is not intended to be used as a device for imposing intra-party discipline, much less for administering the party.”

The Speaker underlined that “no party’s leadership can use the provisions of the Tenth Schedule as a deterrent to stifle the collective dissent of a large number of members by threatening them with disqualification under the Tenth Schedule.”

Narwekar said, the “common party workers usually cannot remain mute onlookers when tussle between leaders and elected members in a political party arises, and they are compelled to choose sides.”

He further said the Speaker has ‘no role’ to play in this game of political tussle between the warring party leaders. “Whatever else may be the consequences of their actions or inactions, the parties cannot expect the Speaker’s office be used to eradicate opposition or quell dissent in party ranks by employing the mechanism of the Tenth Schedule. Tenth Schedule can only enter the arena if the members voluntarily give up membership of the party.”

Narwekar observed that “the Speaker’s action of imposing penal consequences under the Tenth Schedule is to preserve the democratic foundations of the Legislatures or the Parliament” and to prevent use of the provision for ‘ulterior motives for party gains.’

Narwekar held that the MLAs from both the factions had not voluntarily given up membership of the political party and disqualification petitions against them were liable to be dismissed.