Maha political crisis: SC refers Sena vs Sena to larger Constitution bench

The Supreme Court on Thursday referred its 2016 judgment in the Nabam Rebia case to a larger benchThe apex court was delivering its judgment in the case of the defection of 16 MLAs in June 2022 from the then Uddhav Thackerayled Shiv Sena The Thackeray faction had sought disqualification of the MLAs under the antidefection law of the countryThe Nabam Rebia judgment had held that Speakers cannot issue disqualification notices when a notice seeking their removal are pendingThe 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 MLAsThe apex court held that the Speakers decision to appoint Bharat Gogawale Eknath Shinde as the whip of the Shiv Sena party was illegalAlso Read Maharashtra Both Sena camps confident of SC verdict in their favourThe top court said that the Speaker should recognize only the whip appointed by the political partyThe verdict was delivered by a fivejudge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and comprised of Justices MR Shah Krishna Murari Hima Kohli and PS NarasimhaThe fivejudge bench delivered the judgment on a batch of crosspetitions filed by Uddhav Thackeray and chief minister M Eknath Shinde factions on the Maharashtra political crisisThe thengovernor Bhagat Singh Koshyaris decision to invite Shinde to form the government along with the Bharatiya Janata Party after Thackeray chose to resignThe court had earlier reserved the order after all the parties concluded their argumentsThe 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 voteSenior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Uddhav Thackerays 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 alliancesDuring the hearing the Court had observed that Governor should not enter into any area which precipitates the fall of a government and called Maharashtras political crisis a serious issue for democracyThe 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 campSolicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Maharashtra Governor and explained to the Court about the Governors decision to call for a floor test after a rival camp wrote that they were withdrawing support from Uddhav Thackerayled government as they did not want to continueUddhav Thackeray camp had submitted before the Supreme Court that if a crisis like in Maharastra was permitted then it will have farreaching consequences for the country as any government can be toppledThe 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 campSolicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Maharashtra Governor and explained to the Court about the Governors decision to call for a floor test after a rival camp wrote that they were withdrawing support from Uddhav Thackerayled government as they did not want to continueSolicitor 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 majorityThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever