The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in all petitions related to the political crisis in Maharashtra and gave parties time to file replies in the matter. .The Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli noted that some of the issues raised in the pleas might require consideration by a larger bench.It also mulled over the question,"Does minority in party have right to dissolve appointments made by majority? These have to be decided.".The matter will be next heard on Monday, August 1..The Court was hearing a batch of petitions, including one by newly elected Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and 14 other Shiv Sena Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) challenging the disqualification proceedings initiated against them by the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly..Representing the Uddhav Thackeray faction of the Shiv Sena, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued,"Act of Shiv Sena by voting contrary to the official whip stands in violation of the Tenth Schedule. Governor could not have sworn in an individual who had sought to separate himself from the party elected by the people and thus disqualified under Tenth Schedule."He added,"What happens to the verdict of the people? The Tenth Schedule is being used to instigate defection and thus the Schedule has been turned topsy-turvy...".Appearing for former Chief Whip of the Shiv Sena, Sunil Prabhu, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi added,"This departing faction of Shiv Sena, one day before departing to Guwahati, sent a letter to the Deputy Speaker seeking his removal by email. This email is by an unauthorized email. The Deputy Speaker takes it, seizes it and says it is not on record...what is amazing is this letter is now on affidavit by the current Speaker of the Assembly. Yu are seeking to use the principle of Nabam Rebia, which is not applicable here. You cannot create a non-genuine situation..."Describing the majority attained by the Shinde faction as a "contrived majority", Singhvi went on to point out that there has been no merger with the BJP, and hence, the MLAs are liable to be disqualified on grounds of defection."Your Lordships should uphold the purity of the process and thereby uphold Tenth Schedule, otherwise it will be just a mockery of the institution," he submitted..Senior Advocate Harish Salve was next to make arguments on behalf of the Shinde faction. He argued,"Heavens don't fall if a Chief Minister is changed. Let's get into if the Speaker was appointed as per law and not on crisis of democracy and all that."He went on to highlight,"The provision that if you move from the party you will be removed, was dropped from the Tenth Schedule. If there is disaffection within a party and if the leader of the party tells the Speaker that you should not be the person, then so what? It can happen."He also pointed out that the Court has never interfered with the working of a political party.CJI Ramana then observed,"Initially, I had some doubts. This is a sensitive case politically and I don't want to give an impression that we are tilted. That is why we are saying thought process, thanks to media."Stating that the courts' interference under Article 32 or even Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted in this case, Salve went on to contend,"I have a right in my party democracy to raise my voice. Raising voice within party without crossing lakshman rekha is not an act of defection."Contending that the opposite side's assumptions will fall by the wayside after his reply to the petitions, Salve asked the Court to adjourn the matter for a week..CJI Ramana then expressed the possibility of referring these matters to a larger bench."Some of the issues, I feel, will need a larger bench...Reference might be necessary. We can have that if all of you agree on that aspect."He also asked the counsel appearing before him,"What if a CM does not enjoy confidence of his party despite being leader in Legislative Assembly?"Sibal replied,"Political party has to take a call. They have to say he does not enjoy our confidence. He happens to be the leader, hasn't become so just like that.".The Court requested the parties to prepare one common compilation by Thursday, and proceeded to list the matter on August 1..Earlier this month, the Court had asked the new Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, Rahul Narwekar not to take any action on the new disqualification notices issued to 53 Shiv Sena MLAs..The petitions filed before the apex court include one filed by the delinquent MLAs of Shiv Sena challenging the disqualification proceedings initiated by the Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly on disqualification petitions filed by Sunil Prabhu.The third writ petition filed by Prabhu has challenged the allegedly illegal call for a floor test by the Governor of Maharashtra.The fourth is a petition filed by Prabhu challenging the order of the newly-appointed Speaker removing Ajay Chaudhary and Prabhu from the posts of leader as well as Chief Whip of the Shiv Sena Legislature Party respectively..Maharashtra was thrown into a political crisis after Shinde and a rebel group of MLAs left the State first for Surat and then for Guwahati. The Shinde group has expressed its displeasure with the Shiv Sena's alliance with the Congress and Nationalist Congress Party, then headed by Uddhav Thackeray.Some of the rebel MLAs then received disqualification notices from the 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 on June 27 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 the Governor.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in all petitions related to the political crisis in Maharashtra and gave parties time to file replies in the matter. .The Bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli noted that some of the issues raised in the pleas might require consideration by a larger bench.It also mulled over the question,"Does minority in party have right to dissolve appointments made by majority? These have to be decided.".The matter will be next heard on Monday, August 1..The Court was hearing a batch of petitions, including one by newly elected Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and 14 other Shiv Sena Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) challenging the disqualification proceedings initiated against them by the Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly..Representing the Uddhav Thackeray faction of the Shiv Sena, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued,"Act of Shiv Sena by voting contrary to the official whip stands in violation of the Tenth Schedule. Governor could not have sworn in an individual who had sought to separate himself from the party elected by the people and thus disqualified under Tenth Schedule."He added,"What happens to the verdict of the people? The Tenth Schedule is being used to instigate defection and thus the Schedule has been turned topsy-turvy...".Appearing for former Chief Whip of the Shiv Sena, Sunil Prabhu, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi added,"This departing faction of Shiv Sena, one day before departing to Guwahati, sent a letter to the Deputy Speaker seeking his removal by email. This email is by an unauthorized email. The Deputy Speaker takes it, seizes it and says it is not on record...what is amazing is this letter is now on affidavit by the current Speaker of the Assembly. Yu are seeking to use the principle of Nabam Rebia, which is not applicable here. You cannot create a non-genuine situation..."Describing the majority attained by the Shinde faction as a "contrived majority", Singhvi went on to point out that there has been no merger with the BJP, and hence, the MLAs are liable to be disqualified on grounds of defection."Your Lordships should uphold the purity of the process and thereby uphold Tenth Schedule, otherwise it will be just a mockery of the institution," he submitted..Senior Advocate Harish Salve was next to make arguments on behalf of the Shinde faction. He argued,"Heavens don't fall if a Chief Minister is changed. Let's get into if the Speaker was appointed as per law and not on crisis of democracy and all that."He went on to highlight,"The provision that if you move from the party you will be removed, was dropped from the Tenth Schedule. If there is disaffection within a party and if the leader of the party tells the Speaker that you should not be the person, then so what? It can happen."He also pointed out that the Court has never interfered with the working of a political party.CJI Ramana then observed,"Initially, I had some doubts. This is a sensitive case politically and I don't want to give an impression that we are tilted. That is why we are saying thought process, thanks to media."Stating that the courts' interference under Article 32 or even Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted in this case, Salve went on to contend,"I have a right in my party democracy to raise my voice. Raising voice within party without crossing lakshman rekha is not an act of defection."Contending that the opposite side's assumptions will fall by the wayside after his reply to the petitions, Salve asked the Court to adjourn the matter for a week..CJI Ramana then expressed the possibility of referring these matters to a larger bench."Some of the issues, I feel, will need a larger bench...Reference might be necessary. We can have that if all of you agree on that aspect."He also asked the counsel appearing before him,"What if a CM does not enjoy confidence of his party despite being leader in Legislative Assembly?"Sibal replied,"Political party has to take a call. They have to say he does not enjoy our confidence. He happens to be the leader, hasn't become so just like that.".The Court requested the parties to prepare one common compilation by Thursday, and proceeded to list the matter on August 1..Earlier this month, the Court had asked the new Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, Rahul Narwekar not to take any action on the new disqualification notices issued to 53 Shiv Sena MLAs..The petitions filed before the apex court include one filed by the delinquent MLAs of Shiv Sena challenging the disqualification proceedings initiated by the Deputy Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly on disqualification petitions filed by Sunil Prabhu.The third writ petition filed by Prabhu has challenged the allegedly illegal call for a floor test by the Governor of Maharashtra.The fourth is a petition filed by Prabhu challenging the order of the newly-appointed Speaker removing Ajay Chaudhary and Prabhu from the posts of leader as well as Chief Whip of the Shiv Sena Legislature Party respectively..Maharashtra was thrown into a political crisis after Shinde and a rebel group of MLAs left the State first for Surat and then for Guwahati. The Shinde group has expressed its displeasure with the Shiv Sena's alliance with the Congress and Nationalist Congress Party, then headed by Uddhav Thackeray.Some of the rebel MLAs then received disqualification notices from the 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 on June 27 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 the Governor.
