SC questions Maharashtra Speaker, gives 1 week to decide on Uddhav Sena pleas

Stating that the Speaker “has to decide the matter”, the bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, said, “He can’t do this…. It appears that nothing has happened except a letter to the Election Commission…. What is the Speaker proposing to do? He must sit down and decide those petitions now. We didn’t set a time schedule for him…but equally then the Speaker has to abide by the dignity of the Supreme Court.”

It said, “Four months have gone by and we are still at the stage of issuing notices…”

Referring to the Speaker’s order of September 14, 2023, the bench said, “The Speaker has passed other procedural directions observing that further directions will be issued in due course. The order of this court requires the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions within a reasonable period….We equally expect deference and dignity to the directions which have been issued in the exercise of its constitutional power…”

The bench said, “We now direct that the proceedings shall be listed before the Speaker, who is constituted as a tribunal under the 10th Schedule (of the Constitution) no later than within a period of one week when procedural directions shall be issued for completing the record and setting out the time schedule for hearing of the disqualification petitions.”

Fixing the matter for hearing after two weeks, the SC also asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker, to apprise it then “of the time schedule set down for expeditious completion of the adjudication”.

On the Speaker’s order stating that further directions will be issued in “due course”, the CJI observed, “He (Speaker) can’t now say he will hear it in due course. He has to keep on giving dates and get it ready for hearing…. Let the Speaker take it up immediately; not just [say] further directions to be issued in due course. Due course may be even December, January, April…”

Appearing for Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Sunil Prabhu seeking expeditious disposal of the petitions, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the dispute arose on June 21, 2022, and the disqualification petitions were also filed the same year but nothing has come of it so far. “This is a farce,” he submitted.

Sibal pointed out that a judgment by Justice (retired) R F Nariman had said that an Assembly Speaker should decide disqualification petitions within three months, unless there is an exceptional circumstance. He said that in the September 14 hearing, the “Speaker tells us we have not supplied them (MLAs whose disqualification has been sought) with annexures. This issue was never raised before.”

He said that “in any case, it’s the Speaker who has to supply the annexures…” and termed it “delaying tactics”.

Mehta objected to what he said was “ridiculing” the Speaker, who is a Constitutional functionary.

The S-G asked whether it would be appropriate to subject the day-to-day affairs of the Speaker to the writ jurisdiction of the court.

The CJI said, “But he is a tribunal under the 10th Schedule…. As a Speaker, he is entrusted with the duty to adjudicate, but he is a tribunal. All tribunals are amenable to the jurisdiction of the court:.

Agreeing, Mehta said the Speaker has to follow the rules and principles of natural justice.

“Give them reasonable time,” the CJI said.

“That’s what I am giving,” Mehta said. “[The] Speaker has no intention of delaying the matter.”