A Constitution bench headed by Justice DY Chandrachud will hear four important cases on Wednesday - the dispute between Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde factions of Shiv Sena, the case on Citizenship Act of 1955, the dispute between Delhi government and Union government on which government has administrative control over the transfers and postings of officers in Delhi and the validity of reservations for Anglo-Indians, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in parliament and State assemblies. .Aside from Justice Chandrachud, the judges on the bench are Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha.The cases will be taken up at 10.30 am today and the hearings are likely to be short to decide on filing of documents, compilations etc and to finalise the date for the hearings. .Citizenship Act/ NRC.This case involves the question regarding the scope of Section 3(1)(a) of the Citizenship Act of 1955. The Court will consider the important issue of whether citizenship is acquired by birth or by descendance with respect to persons born in India after January 26, 1950 and before July 1, 1987. .This bench will also consider the challenge to Section 6A of the Citizenship Act which was introduced through an amendment in 1985.This provision deals with grant of citizenship to those who came to India from Bangladesh and grants citizenship to two categories of persons - first, those who entered Assam from Bangladesh before 1966 and second, those who entered Assam after 1966 but before 1971 and stayed for at least 10 years. The outcome of this case, will have a major bearing on the National Register of Citizens (NRC) list. .Maharashtra Politics.The bench will hear the pleas by the two warring factions of Shiv Sena, Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray issues arising out of a batch of petitions related to the Maharashtra political crisis.The petitions relate to the formation of the Eknath Shinde-led BJP government in Maharashtra, the disqualification of rebel MLAs, and the right over the Shiv Sena's bow-and-arrow symbol.A 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court while referring the matter to Constitution bench had said that the Constitution bench is required to look at the gap left by the decision in the case of Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker with regard to the power of the deputy speaker to initiate disqualification proceedings..In the Nabam Rebia judgment, the Supreme Court had laid down the scope of the speaker’s power to disqualify members of the Legislative Assembly in 2016.While dealing with the Maharashtra political crisis, the Supreme Court observed that the Nabam Rebia Bench left one question unanswered - Can a speaker use his powers to disqualify member while a no-confidence motion filed against the speaker himself is pending before the House?The Constitution Bench will interpret the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution to answer this question..Delhi Government vs Lieutenant Governor.The five-judge bench will adjudicate upon the dispute between the Central and Delhi governments regarding which government has administrative control over the transfers and postings of officers in DelhiJustice Chandrachud led bench is expected to decide on the scope and ambit of legislative and executive powers of the Centre and the Government of the NCT of Delhi with regard to control the bureaucracy in the capital..The Delhi Government had challenged the validity of amended Government of NCT of Delhi Act, 2021 and Rule 13 of the Transaction of Business Rules, 1993 which allegedly gave more powers to Lieutenant Governor.The Delhi government's case is that the elected government of Delhi has been excluded by the Central government from exercising any administrative control over the important bureaucrats and officers and that the officers are continuing to act on the orders of the Central government through the Lieutenant Governor (LG).In 2018, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had interpreted Article 239AA of the Constitution, which contains special provisions with respect to the National Capital Territory. The peculiar status of the NCT and the powers of the Delhi Legislative Assembly and the LG and their interplay were debated in the case.The Court in that judgment had ruled that the LG cannot act independently without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, and has to work harmoniously with the NCT government.The appeals relating to individual aspects including services were then placed before a regular Bench for adjudication based on the Constitution Bench judgment.The regular bench had on April 14, 2019, pronounced its verdict on various individual aspects relating to the tussle between the Delhi government and the LG.However, the two judges on the Bench - Justices AK Sikri and Ashok Bhushan - had differed on the issue of 'services' under Schedule VII, List II, Entry 41 of the Constitution of IndiaThe issue considered by the Court was whether the exclusion of “services” relatable to Entry 41 of List II of the Seventh Schedule from the legislative and executive domain of the NCT of Delhi, vide a notification of the Government of India dated May 21, 2015, is unconstitutional and illegal.Since the judges on the Bench differed, that aspect was referred to a larger Bench and it came up before a three-judge bench.The three-judge bench then referred the matter to the Constitution Bench on Centre's request.The primary basis of the prayer to refer it to a five-judge bench was that the majority judgment of the Constitution Bench did not consider purpose and intent of the expression “insofar as any such matter is applicable to Union Territories” as it occurs in Article 239AA(3) of the Constitution, which is the pivotal and crucial aspect of the said provision..Validity of extending legislative assembly reservations beyond 10 YearsA fourth case listed before the Constitution bench is on the validity of the Constitution (79th Amendment) Act, 1999 which extended the reservations of seats in the Lok Sabha and Legislative Assemblies of the States for Anglo Indians, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes communities.