Sena vs Sena: SC asks if Speaker didn’t go against ruling by relying on majority

With the Shinde group alleging forgery in the documents produced before Speaker Rahul Narwekar, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also sought original records pertaining to the January 10 decision holding the Shinde group as the “real political party” from the Speaker’s office.

Speaker Rahul Narweka

The Supreme Court Thursday fixed April 8 to hear a Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) plea challenging the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s decision not to disqualify Shiv Sena MLAs owing allegiance to Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, while wondering if the Speaker’s reliance on legislative majority to decide which was the real party was contrary to its 2023 judgment in the Maharashtra Assembly crisis.

With the Shinde group alleging forgery in the documents produced before Speaker Rahul Narwekar, a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra also sought original records pertaining to the January 10 decision holding the Shinde group as the “real political party” from the Speaker’s office.

At Thursday’s hearing, referring to the Speaker’s decision the CJI said, “He says, which faction is the real political party is discernible from the legislative majority which existed when the rival factions emerged” and asked “is this not contrary to our judgment?” The court’s reference was to the May 11, 2023, judgment wherein it had held that former Maharashtra Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari’s decision to ask then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray to prove his majority on the House floor after the rebellion in the Shiv Sena in June 2022, was “not justified”. The SC had also termed the decision of Speaker Narwekar to recognise Bharat Gogawale as the chief whip of the Shiv Sena Legislature Party (SSLP) illegal.

Appearing for the Sena (UBT) senior advocate Kapil Sibal urged that the SC should decide the matter as it had delivered the 2023 judgment in the related mater. He said it needed to be urgently decided as Assembly elections are due this year. He said, “We have a constitutional right to come under Article 136 (Special Leave to Appeal to the SC).”

Senior advocate A M Singhvi, also appearing for the Sena (UBT), said, “Where there is a legislative majority versus organisational majority issue arising after elections, then inherently legislative majority cannot be the basis because you are counting legislative majority based on defections. But the Speaker applies that.”

Senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the Shinde group, said many of the documents produced before the Speaker and the top court “are brazenly fabricated” and the court is being asked to examine all that.

Ananthakrishnan G

Ananthakrishnan G. is a Senior Assistant Editor with The Indian Express. He has been in the field for over 23 years, kicking off his journalism career as a freelancer in the late nineties with bylines in The Hindu. A graduate in law, he practised in the District judiciary in Kerala for about two years before switching to journalism. His first permanent assignment was with The Press Trust of India in Delhi where he was assigned to cover the lower courts and various commissions of inquiry. He reported from the Delhi High Court and the Supreme Court of India during his first stint with The Indian Express in 2005-2006. Currently, in his second stint with The Indian Express, he reports from the Supreme Court and writes on topics related to law and the administration of justice. Legal reporting is his forte though he has extensive experience in political and community reporting too, having spent a decade as Kerala state correspondent, The Times of India and The Telegraph. He is a stickler for facts and has several impactful stories to his credit. ... Read More

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Tags:
shiv sena