© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Months after the Election Commission (EC) decided to hand over the Shiv Sena’s original name and symbol to Chief Minister Eknath Shinde-led party faction, Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar’s ruling Wednesday that the “real Shiv Sena” at the time of split in the party on June 21, 2022, was the Shinde group, the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s chief and ex-CM Uddhav Thackeray may have to go for a final battle to the people’s court in the upcoming Lok Sabha elections, which will be followed by the Assembly polls later this year.
The Speaker, however, decided to not disqualify any of the MLAs from either faction.
Dismissing all 34 petitions filed by both sides against each other between June-July 2022 seeking the disqualification of 54 MLAs belonging to rival factions, Narwekar decided in Shinde’s favour on the core issue as to which faction was the “real political party” when the split occurred, thereby giving the CM a distinct political advantage, at least for now.
The SC Constitution Bench, in its May 11, 2023 order, had said that in arriving at the decision in disqualification proceedings, the Speaker shall decide which faction was the “real Shiv Sena”.
In doing so, the SC had asked the Speaker to consider the version of constitution of the party submitted to the EC with consent of both factions, as well as any other rules and regulations which specify the structure of the leadership of the party and legislative majority.
The apex court had also told the Speaker not to base his decision on a blind appreciation of which group possesses a majority in the Assembly. It had said that Narwekar should first determine which of the factions is a political party without being influenced by the EC’s ruling.
Deciding on the issue of the relevant party constitution, Narwekar held that the Shiv Sena (UBT)’s submission calling for the amended 2018 constitution to be taken into account cannot be accepted. The last party constitution submitted to the EC before the rival groups emerged was in 1999, he said stating that the UBT faction has not submitted any amended constitution on record before him. And hence, the Speaker said, he had to rely on the 1999 party constitution, which is its only official constitution available on the EC’s website.
The Speaker held that as per the Shiv Sena structure of 2018, the “Paksha Pramukh” (party chief) is merely the presiding member of the party’s Rashtriya Karyakarini (national executive) and that when there is a vertical split in the party, the leaders of both factions can equally stake their claims on the “will of the political party”.
Narwekar stated that the power of the party chief was “not absolute” and that it had to be exercised in consultation with the national executive. The argument that the “the decision of ‘paksha pramukh’ is synonymous to the will of the political party in case of rift is devoid of merit,” he said.
Narwekar also ruled that the Uddhav Sena leader Sunil Prabhu ceased to be the party’s whip since a rival faction had emerged and Bharat Gogawale from the Shinde faction was “validly” appointed its whip on June 21, 2022. The SC had held the Gogawale’s appointment as “illegal”. The Speaker also held Shinde’s appointment as the group leader by his faction members as valid.
While the Sena (UBT) faction alleged that the MLAs representing the Shinde faction had deliberately remained absent in the Shiv Sena Legislative Party (SSLP) meeting called by Sunil Prabhu on June 21, 2022 and therefore they should be disqualified, the Speaker rejected the submission, stating that Prabhu did not have the authority to call the said meeting. He said that “non-attendance” of the MLAs could not be the ground to disqualify them. “Non attendance for the meeting can at the most be termed as act of dissent within the party and it would be protected by freedom of speech and expression,” he said.
Narwekar also ruled that there were “discrepancies” in claims made by Prabhu as the original attendance sheet had 17 signatures and the copy submitted in the plea had 15 signatures, hence it could not be considered as proof.
The UBT faction had also alleged that the Shinde group’s MLAs had made “anti-party” and “anti-coalition” statements. However, Narwekar called these charges “unsubstantiated”.
He also observed that “Shinde faction MLAs going incommunicado (on allegation of them being in Surat and Guwahati) ceased to hold the meaning for the purpose of disqualification”.
The Shinde faction had also filed counter petitions seeking disqualification of Uddhav Sena MLAs. Dismissing its pleas, the Speaker held that the ground taken by them that the MLAs had “voluntarily given up” the party’s membership was “mere allegation” and that no material was provided to substantiate it.
“Though the petition tried to show that whip was served on the Respondent, the petitioner has failed to prove it and there are major inconsistencies in their submissions… Thus the submission for disqualification of Shiv Sena (UBT) members also cannot be accepted,” Narwekar ruled.
Referring to Uddhav, the Speaker also held that “no party leadership can use provisions of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution as a deterrent to stifle the dissent of a large number of members”.
