Uddhav Thackeray Vs Eknath Shinde LIVE UPDATES: SC refers matter to 7-judge bench
Uddhav Thackeray Vs Eknath Shinde: Ahead of the Supreme Court judgment that will decide the fate of the Eknath Shinde-led government in Maharashtra, Opposition bloc MVA on Wednesday said the verdict will determine if democracy "exists" in the country and judiciary "functions" independently.
Uddhav Thackeray Vs Eknath Shinde: The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 11) referred the petitions filed by the faction of Shiv Sena- led by Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde to a 7-judge bench. The petitions are related to the 2022 Maharashtra political crisis which caused the toppling of the MVA government.
A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said that the 2016 Nabam Rebia case which held that Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings when a resolution seeking his removal is pending, requires reference to a larger bench. "The issues such as whether a notice to the removal of the Speaker will restrict the powers of the Speaker to issue disqualification notices need examination by a larger bench," said SC.
'Speaker's decision to appoint Bharat Gogawale as chief Whip was illegal'
The apex court said that the courts cannot be excluded by Article 212 from inquiring into the validity of the action of the Speaker by recognising the whip. It said that the Speaker should recognize only the whip appointed by the political party. The Court said the Speaker's decision to appoint Bharat Gogawale (Shinde group) as chief Whip of the Shiv Sena party was illegal.
"Governor had no objective material to call for a Floor test in the Assembly, it cannot be used as a medium to resolve inter or intra-party dispute," it said.
The top court had reserved its verdict on the pleas at the conclusion of lengthy arguments from both sides that went on for nine days starting February 21.
On the last day of the hearing, the top court had wondered as to how it can reinstate the Uddhav Thackeray government when the chief minister had put in his papers even before facing the floor test, after the faction led by him pitched for setting aside the governor's June 2022 order to the CM for a trial of strength in the House.
The Thackeray faction made vehement submissions before the court urging it to "turn back the clock" and restore the "status quo ante" (previously existing state of affairs) as it had done in 2016 when it reinstalled Nabam Tuki as the chief minister of Arunachal Pradesh.
The bench, also comprises Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha.
The Uddhav Thackeray faction was represented by senior advocates Kapil Sibal, AM Singhvi, Devadatt Kamat and advocate Amit Anand Tiwari, while the Shinde camp was represented by senior advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and advocate Abhikalp Pratap Singh.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the office of the governor. On February 17, the top court had declined to refer a batch of pleas related to the Maharashtra political crisis triggered by a split in the Shiv Sena to a seven-judge bench for reconsideration of the 2016 Nabam Rebia judgement on Arunachal Pradesh.
The 2016 judgement dealt with powers of the assembly speaker and ruled that he/she cannot proceed with pleas for disqualification of MLAs if a prior notice seeking the speaker's removal is pending before the House.
On June 29, 2022, at the height of the Maharashtra turmoil, the apex court had refused to stay the governor's direction to the 31-month-old MVA government led by Thackeray to take a floor test.
Sensing defeat, Thackeray resigned, catapulting to power a Shiv Sena-BJP dispensation led by Shinde.
On August 23, 2022, a three-judge bench of the top court headed by then chief justice N V Ramana had formulated several questions of law and referred to the five-judge bench petitions filed by the two Sena factions which raised several constitutional questions related to defection, merger and disqualification.
In a blow to the Thackeray bloc, the Election Commission had earlier this year declared the Shinde faction as the real Shiv Sena and allotted it the bow and arrow symbol of the party founded by Balasaheb Thackeray.
MVA leader are hopeful
Ahead of the Supreme Court judgment that will decide the fate of the Eknath Shinde-led government in Maharashtra, Opposition bloc MVA on Wednesday said the verdict will determine if democracy "exists" in the country and judiciary "functions" independently.
On the other side, Shiv Sena spokesperson and party MLA Sanjay Shirsat asserted that there is no nervousness in their camp as they had factored in all aspects before revolting (last year).
“We have seen the results the Election Commission gave us the party name and symbol and we won the first stage,” Shirsat said.
What happened in June 2022
Last June, Shinde and 39 MLAs rebelled against the undivided Shiv Sena leadership resulting in the party’s split and collapse of the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government, which also comprised the NCP and Congress. Shinde later tied up with the BJP to return as the CM.
Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aaditya Thackeray said he hoped that his party will get justice, asserting that he has faith in the judiciary.
His party colleague and Rajya Sabha MP Sanjay Raut said that the impending verdict will determine the future of the country.
"The Supreme Court judgment will decide whether there is democracy in the country, whether legislatures are functioning as per the Constitution, the judiciary is functioning independently.
We are hopeful that we will get justice. I am confident that the Supreme Court of the country is independent," Raut told reporters.
Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) spokesperson Mahesh Tapase said the judgment will be crucial for Indian democracy and the Constitution. He hoped that the judgment would strengthen the Constitution.
Congress leader Ashok Chavan said whichever way the decision goes, it should be impartial.
“This is our expectation. Be it the speaker or deputy speaker, he does not belong to any party, but he is the custodian of the House. If the Supreme Court or the speaker takes the decision, it has to be an impartial one,” he said.