Breather for Shinde camp as SC pushes disqualification deadline | Latest News India - Hindustan Times
close_game
close_game

Breather for Shinde camp as SC pushes disqualification deadline

Jun 28, 2022 03:33 AM IST

The court also told the state government to ensure the safety of all the dissident legislators and their families.

Haste can lead to undesirable consequences, the Supreme Court on Monday told the deputy speaker of the Maharashtra assembly, while protecting a group of rebel Shiv Sena legislators led by dissident MLA Eknath Shinde from the disqualification proceedings till July 11.

As per the June 25 disqualification notices, the MLAs were asked to submit their written replies to the disqualification notices by June 27.
As per the June 25 disqualification notices, the MLAs were asked to submit their written replies to the disqualification notices by June 27.

The court also told the state government to ensure the safety of all the dissident legislators and their families.

Hindustan Times - your fastest source for breaking news! Read now.

A bench of justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala virtually restrained deputy speaker Narhari Zariwal from disqualifying the 16 rebel MLAs until the Supreme Court examines whether Zariwal had the authority to entertain the disqualification petitions when a motion seeking his own removal was pending. Shinde and others sought Zariwal’s removal on June 21. Four days later, Zariwal issued disqualification notices to the 16 dissident MLAs, including Shinde.

“We have to determine the very competence of the speaker to decide. If we don’t say anything today, that would mean the speaker is competent to go ahead. Today, we have to ensure the matter doesn’t become infructuous,” said the bench, extending the time for Shinde and 15 others to file replies to the notice issued by the deputy speaker till July 12.

As per the June 25 disqualification notices, the MLAs were asked to submit their written replies to the disqualification notices by June 27. But the bench held that the disqualification proceedings must be “kept in abeyance” for the time being since there are questions surrounding Zariwal’s authority in initiating the action.

“Sometimes haste also leads to unnecessary and undesirable consequences... we cannot ignore their (petitioners’) contentions. We have a constitution bench judgment saying something very close to the facts of this case...status quo will have to be maintained,” observed the bench, fixing July 11 as the next date of hearing.

Issuing notices to Zariwal, Sena chief whip Sunil Prabhu, and legislature party leader Ajay Chaudhary on the petitions by Shinde and 15 others, the court asked them to file their counter affidavits within five days, following which Shinde and his loyalists could file their replies.

Acting on two writ petitions filed by Shinde and 15 other rebel MLAs, the top court asked Zariwal to explain if he could deal with the disqualification proceedings until a question related to his removal is decided, besides asking his office to put all the documents on record relating to the notice served on him for his removal.

The bench further accepted the plea by senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, who appeared for Shinde and others, for ensuring protection to the MLAs and their families in the wake of perceived threats to their life and properties. Kaul said that he is pressing for protection of not only 16 MLAs who are the petitioners before the court but for all the 39 legislators in the Shinde camp.

At this, the court asked the Maharashtra government to ensure protection of 39 dissident MLAs and their family members. The bench recorded the undertaking by Maharashtra government’s standing counsel Rahul Chitnis that “no harm shall be caused to the life, liberty and properties of the 39 dissidents”.

Maharashtra has been facing political imbroglio since last week after Shinde went to Surat in Gujarat with some of the rebels. The number in the camp has now swelled to 39 — more than the 37 required to break away from the 55-strong Shiv Sena in the state assembly without attraction censure under the anti-defection law. The Shinde faction is presently holed up in a hotel at Guwahati in Assam. Both Gujarat and Assam are ruled by the BJP. The rebel leaders are opposed to the continuance of Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government, a coalition alliance of the Shiv Sena, the NCP and the Congress.

On Sunday, the Shinde faction took the political crisis to the top court by filing petitions against the disqualification notices issued to them. The plea further challenged Zariwal’s approval to the appointment of Uddhav-loyalist Ajay Chaudhari as the legislature party leader of the Shiv Sena, and Sunil Prabhu’s appointment as the chief whip, demanding that Chaudhari’s appointment be declared illegal. The plea claimed that the MVA alliance has lost the majority in the house as 38 of the members of the Shiv Sena legislature party have withdrawn their support.

When the matter was taken up on Monday, senior advocate Kaul questioned the “undue haste and hurry” shown by Zariwal in issuing notice on the disqualification petitions. He maintained that Zariwal had no authority to decide the disqualification petitions until the matter of his removal was not adjudicated upon under Article 179 C of the Constitution.

Kaul relied on the 2016 constitution bench judgment in the Arunachal Pradesh disqualification case, which laid down: “It would be constitutionally impermissible for a Speaker to adjudicate upon disqualification petition under the Tenth Schedule, while a notice of resolution for his own removal from the Office of the Speaker, is pending.”

When asked why the Shinde faction did not first approach the Bombay high court, Kaul responded that the Supreme Court has in the past directly entertained cases on disqualification and floor tests, and that the threat perception in Mumbai made them move the apex court.

Representing Prabhu and Chaudhary, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi countered Kaul’s argument, emphasising the rebel MLAs should have approached the high court first instead of “leapfrogging” to the top court. Singhvi further cited a 1961 Constitution bench judgment to buttress the point that a court must not interfere until the Speaker decides the disqualification petition one way or the other.

The bench, however, retorted that the precise question before it is whether the Speaker is entitled to decide disqualification petitions when a motion of his own removal was pending, especially in the light of the Constitution bench ruling in the 2016 Arunachal Pradesh case. It also wondered if the Speaker can become “a judge in his own cause” by choosing to decide himself the motion that seeks his removal.

On the factual aspect, the bench sought to know the steps taken by Zariwal after he received a notice from the Shinde camp seeking his removal on the ground of no-confidence. Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for Zariwal, said that the deputy speaker indeed received the notice but he has sought to verify its authenticity.

“The notice was not sent to the registered office of the secretariat. It was not through anyone’s official email. It was sent through a lawyer. Therefore, the deputy speaker has proceeded to check its authenticity,” argued Dhavan.

To this, the bench said that Zariwal as well as the assembly secretariat will have to bring all pertinent documents on record regarding the receipt of the motion and the replies sent. “We will have to see what efforts were made to verify the authenticity. Let your secretary file an affidavit. Somebody will have to say it on oath,” ordered the bench.

Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, also appearing for Prabhu and Chaudhary, questioned the maintainability of the petitions, contending there is a body of judgments that prevent the Supreme Court from interdicting until the Speaker decides the matters within his remit.

Kamat, towards the close of the proceedings, submitted that the court may also consider that the status quo may get changed if there is a floor test. He asked for liberty to approach the court if such a situation arises. “You do not need liberty. Every citizen has a right to come to this court. Our doors are always open. We will hear everyone on July 11,” responded the bench.

The court, however, said that the issue of judicial interference varies in the facts and circumstances of the case, adding it may also examine the question of maintainability on the next date of hearing.

Unveiling Elections 2024: The Big Picture', a fresh segment in HT's talk show 'The Interview with Kumkum Chadha', where leaders across the political spectrum discuss the upcoming general elections. Watch now!

Get Current Updates on India News, Election 2024, Mukhtar Ansari Death News Live, Bihar Board 10th Result 2024 Live along with Latest News and Top Headlines from India and around the world.
SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON
Share this article
SHARE
Story Saved
Live Score
OPEN APP
Saved Articles
Following
My Reads
Sign out
New Delhi 0C
Friday, March 29, 2024
Start 14 Days Free Trial Subscribe Now
Follow Us On