© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar will finally pronounce Wednesday his verdict on 34 petitions that the two rival Shiv Sena factions have filed against one another seeking the disqualification of 54 MLAs in total, arising out of the split in the party back in June 2022. The Supreme Court, at a hearing in October, had pulled up Narwekar for not deciding on the petitions, saying he “can’t defeat the orders of the Supreme Court like this”. The court had subsequently set a December 31 deadline and extended it to January 10.
The Speaker’s decision — expected to be delivered around 4 pm — will potentially roil Maharashtra politics months before the Lok Sabha and Assembly elections. In another twist, on Tuesday, Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) chief Uddhav Thackeray filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court objecting to Sunday’s meeting between Narwekar and Chief Minister and rival Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde at the latter’s official residence. Narwekar said the motive behind Thackeray’s comments was clear, adding, “It is not written anywhere that the Speaker should not do other work while he is disposing of the disqualification petitions. If I need to contact the Chief Minister while performing my duties as an MLA or Speaker, I don’t need anyone’s permission.”
Here is a history of the dispute and the probable scenarios that are likely to play out in Maharashtra politics depending on what Narwekar decides. Both groups are prepared to approach the Supreme Court if the decision is against them and the next battle is likely to take place in the top court.
On June 21, 2022, Eknath Shinde and a group of Sena MLAs rebelled against then CM Uddhav Thackeray, to protest against what they saw as the party’s slow loss of identity in the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance. Hours after Shinde’s rebellion, Uddhav’s group passed a resolution removing him as the leader of the legislature party and appointed Ajay Choudhari in his place. Sunil Prabhu was appointed the chief whip of the party.
The same day, the Shinde group passed a resolution affirming that Shinde would continue to lead the legislature party and appointed Bharatshet Gogawale as the chief whip, which Narwekar — elected Speaker after the fall of the MVA government — accepted on July 3, 2022.
Two days after the split in the Sena, the first set of disqualification pleas was filed against Shinde and 15 other MLAs for not attending a meeting that Prabhu had convened. On June 27, another set of disqualification pleas was filed against 22 more MLAs of the Shinde Sena. Later, petitions were filed against two more MLAs, bringing the total number to 40.
The Shinde Sena, in return, filed petitions seeking the disqualification of 14 Shiv Sena (UBT) legislators. Prabhu challenged these counter-petitions in the Supreme Court.
The hearings in the case concluded on December 20, on the last day of the Winter Session of the state legislature in Nagpur. In response to the allegation of the Shiv Sena (UBT) that Shinde and the MLAs with him did not follow the whip issued by Prabhu, the CM’s group — which was recognised as the real Shiv Sena by the Election Commission in February 2023 — claimed that the MLAs never received any whip and the whip was never issued. Hence, there was no question of abiding or violating the whip, they added.
The Shinde Sena claimed that they chose to exit the MVA since their supporters were upset with the alliance. Forming their group and joining the government did not amount to a violation of legislative rules inviting disqualification, it said. The party’s lawyer, Mahesh Jethmalani, also alleged that the documents and records the Shiv Sena (UBT) submitted before the Speaker were forged.
The Shiv Sena (UBT) argued in return that when the MVA was formed, the rebels did not communicate their opposition to Uddhav.
In May 2023, the Supreme Court ruled that Narwekar must rely upon the party’s original constitution. Asking the Speaker to decide on the petitions, the court in its May 11 judgment said, “In arriving at their decision (in disqualification proceedings), the Speaker must consider the constitution of the party as well as any other rules and regulations which specify the structure of the leadership of the party. If the rival groups submit two or more versions of the party constitution, the Speaker must consider the version submitted to the ECI before the rival factions emerged. In other words, the Speaker must consider the version of the party constitution which was submitted to the ECI with the consent of both factions. This will obviate a situation where both factions attempt to amend the constitution to serve their own ends.”
The court also told the Speaker he must not base his decision on a blind appreciation of which group possesses a majority in the Assembly, and said the Speaker should first determine which of the factions is a political party, without being influenced by the ECI order.
“This is not a game of numbers, but of something more. The structure of leadership outside the Legislative Assembly is a consideration which is relevant to the determination of this issue,” it said, adding, “Thus, the adjudication of the Speaker on whether a member must be disqualified would also depend on the decision of the Speaker recognising one of the two (or more) Whips.”
Constitutional expert Anant Kalse said, “As per the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India, the decision of the Speaker in disqualification is appealable in the High Court and Supreme Court because the concept of judicial review applies to the Speaker. So, ultimately, the SC is empowered to take a final decision.”
Kalse said since both the factions had filed cross petitions, the Speaker would have to disqualify one of the faction MLAs, be it from Shinde’s or Uddhav’s. Asked if there was a possibility of the Speaker not disqualifying anyone saying the law was not applicable since the EC had recognised the two factions as separate parties, Kalse said the Speaker could have done it but the SC had said in its May verdict that the Speaker should consider and decide the status of the original party before the rebellion to ascertain which party was the original one.
Uddhav has managed to garner a degree of public sympathy, which he will be looking to build on during the elections. If his MLAs are disqualified, he will have the opportunity to claim loudly that he is being targeted and attempt to corner the BJP, even as the legal battle drags on in the courts. The BJP will not want Uddhav and the “weaker” Sena to gain any sympathy wave before the elections.
If the Shiv Sena MLAs are disqualified, then it will put the BJP in a tough spot as when forming the government with Shinde, it had claimed that the move was as per the Constitution. It will also give the Opposition the much-needed boost to take on the BJP and the Shiv Sena before the elections and strengthen its argument that the state government was formed “unconstitutionally and illegally”.
The outcome of the disqualification proceedings will not destabilise the government since the Ajit Pawar-led Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) is with the ruling alliance. But it will set a precedent for the crisis in the NCP that has also split vertically.
