Maharashtra political crisis: Supreme Court refers Sena vs Sena to larger Constitution bench

Representative image/iStock

The Supreme Court on Thursday referred its 2016 judgment in the Nabam Rebia case to a larger bench.

The apex court was delivering its judgment in the case of the defection of 16 MLAs in June 2022 from the then Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena. The Thackeray faction had sought disqualification of the MLAs under the anti-defection law of the country.

The Nabam Rebia judgment had held that Speakers cannot issue disqualification notices when a notice seeking their removal are pending.

The Supreme Court also said the Speaker if he finds that the motion for his removal is not as per procedure, then he could proceed with the petitions seeking disqualification of the MLAs.

The apex court held that the Speaker's decision to appoint Bharat Gogawale (Eknath Shinde) as the whip of the Shiv Sena party was illegal.

Also Read: Maharashtra: Both Sena camps confident of SC verdict in their favour

The top court said that the Speaker should recognize only the whip appointed by the political party.

The verdict was delivered by a five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprised of Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha.

The five-judge bench delivered the judgment on a batch of cross-petitions filed by Uddhav Thackeray and chief minister M Eknath Shinde factions on the Maharashtra political crisis.

The then-governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari's decision to invite Shinde to form the government along with the Bharatiya Janata Party after Thackeray chose to resign.

The court had earlier reserved the order after all the parties concluded their arguments.

The lawyer appearing for the Uddhav Thackeray camp had said that the illegal act of the Maharashtra Governor is a prior pending sub judice challenge before the trust vote.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Uddhav Thackeray's camp had said that the Governor cannot call for a trust vote based on a faction as calling for a trust vote is based on alliances.

During the hearing, the Court had observed that Governor should not enter into any area which precipitates the fall of a government and called Maharashtra's political crisis a "serious issue for democracy".

The hearing that went on for almost nine days had witnesses and arguments made by various senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal and AM Singhvi for the Uddhav camp and Harish Salve, NK Kaul and Mahesh Jethmalani for the Shinde camp.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Maharashtra Governor and explained to the Court about the Governor's decision to call for a floor test after a rival camp wrote that they were withdrawing support from Uddhav Thackeray-led government as they did not want to continue.

Uddhav Thackeray camp had submitted before the Supreme Court that if a crisis like in Maharastra was permitted then it will have far-reaching consequences for the country as any government can be toppled.

The hearing that went on for almost nine days had witnesses and arguments made by various senior lawyers including Kapil Sibal and AM Singhvi for the Uddhav camp and Harish Salve, NK Kaul and Mahesh Jethmalani for the Shinde camp.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Maharashtra Governor and explained to the Court about the Governor's decision to call for a floor test after a rival camp wrote that they were withdrawing support from Uddhav Thackeray-led government as they did not want to continue.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, arguing on behalf of the Maharashtra Governor, apprised the Court of the fact that the rival legislators had written to the Governor about their unwillingness to continue with the then government and the Governor invited Thackeray to prove his majority.

This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever.