Court hears election cases from some States day after day while others not decided for years: Uddhav Thackeray faction to Supreme Court

A hearing related to the 2022 Maharashtra political crisis in Supreme Court on Tuesday saw Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argue that while courts takes years to decide on election cases concerning some States, it sits on a day-to-day basis to discuss such matters for other States. [Subhash Desai v. Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra & Ors].The submission was made during the hearing of the challenge to the formation of the Eknath Shinde-led Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Maharashtra.The matter is being heard by a Constitution Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, and Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, PS Narasimha.Appearing for the Uddhay Thackeray faction of the Shiv Sena, Sibal contended,"Sometimes, the Court sits day after day to discuss what is happening in Rajasthan, but when it comes to Goa and some other assemblies, it takes years to decide!"The statement was made in response to a question posed by Justice Shah on what would happen in the interim period when a disqualification initiated against a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) was challenged before the Court. Replying to Sibal's submission, Justice Shah queried, "Then what it is the course? Suppose in the court, it takes time?".Sibal responded that the Court should not assumed that it would take time. "I would request Your Lordships to not assume that Court will take time...Courts should not...Courts are taking time...It's for the Court to decide. We expect the Court to take up the matter immediately, but Courts don't, unfortunately", he said..During the hearing on Tuesday, Sibal argued that any disqualification would be subject to judicial review. If the Court were to find that some one was wrongly disqualified, such person would be back in the House, he submitted. When Justice Shah underscored that his concern was limited to what would take place in the interim, Sibal pointed out that such an issue would arise in every case of disqualification. "Let is forget about this issue .. in every case of disqualification, he'll come back! What's the difference in that consequence and the one Your Lordship is asking me?" Sibal argued. .The Supreme Court was hearing a case concerning the two warring factions of Shiv Sena, Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray.In the wake of the political crisis in Maharashtra last year, rebel MLAs of the Shinde faction had received disqualification notices from the then Deputy Speaker for acting against the party whip while voting during the Member of Legislative Council (MLC) elections in the State. The rebel MLAs then approached the top court against the disqualification notices.The Supreme Court had on June 27, 2022 granted interim relief to Shinde and his rebel group of MLAs by extending the time to file responses to the disqualification notices sent by the Deputy Speaker, till July 12.Subsequently, the Court on June 29 also gave the go-ahead to a floor test called for by Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari.This led to the fall of the Thackeray government and Shinde took oath as Chief Minister with the backing of the BJP, which is the single largest party in the House.The Thackeray camp meanwhile filed various petitions before the top court. One of the petitions has challenged the summoning of the Assembly by the Governor of Maharashtra for conducting the floor test.Another petition challenged the illegal order of the newly appointed Speaker removing Ajay Chaudhary and Sunil Prabhu from the posts of leader as well as Chief Whip of the Shiv Sena Legislature Party respectively..On Tuesday, the Court began hearings on the issue of whether rebel MLAs from the Shiv Sena should be disqualified, and also on which faction of the split party had rights over the Shiv Sena's bow-and-arrow symbol.The bench will also be examining the decision in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker, with regard to the power of the Deputy Speaker to initiate disqualification proceedings..These issues, which arose out of a batch of petitions related to the Maharashtra political crisis, were referred to a Constitution bench by a bench headed by then CJI NV Ramana in August last year.