The Bombay High Court on Friday directed Member of Legislative Assembly from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Girish Mahajan to deposit ₹10 lakh as a pre-condition for hearing his plea challenging rules for election of speaker and deputy speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly [Girish Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra]..A Bench of Chief Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice MS Karnik was hearing two public interest litigation petitions challenging the State notification altering Rules 6 (election of speaker) and 7 (selection of deputy speaker) of the MLA Rules, claiming it is arbitrary and in violation the Constitution..During the course of the petition, the Court emphasized that PILs ought to serve public interest, and mused how the present PIL pertaining to election of speakers could be of public interest.“If it is personal liberty, lives are being lost, then we will intervene. Why is this political battle in High Court!” the Court remarked..If it is personal liberty, lives are being lost, then we will intervene. Why is this political battle in High Court?Bombay High Court .The Bench also observed that Mahajan had been sitting on the fence for long before filing the present PIL which created suspicion on his bona fides.Consequently, the Court directed him to deposit ₹10 lakh as condition to hear the case."The petitioner is a sitting MLA and he has approached the High Court on the 11th hour which raises suspicion on his bonafides and because of this we direct him to deposit ₹10 lakhs", the order stated.The Bench was also hearing a connected petition filed by a citizen Janak Vyas.Advocate Abhinav Chandrachud appearing for the petitioner, pointed out that the rules permitting the Chief Minister to advise the Governor on elections of the speaker were unconstitutional.To this the Bench enquired whether there was any provision in the Constitution which prevented the CM to advise the governor without aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.“Why should we read something to denude the CM of his powers!” the Bench demanded.Chandrachud sought sometime to respond to this query..The Bench also noted that the notification of December 2021 was challenged just 10 days before the elections were proposed to be held, and this delay was unexplained.Additionally the concerned respondent authority from the State was not made a party and some other authority was made a party.Stating that they were prima facie convinced of the preliminary objections, the Bench expressed that it would not be in keeping with judicial propriety to interfere with the legislature’s action.“We have to respect our other wing. We cannot keep interfering in the functions of the legislature,” the Court remarked..The plea stated that by way of the amendment, the State essentially:removed the procedure of secret ballot and replaced it with voice vote;restricted the power of the Governor to notify the date of the election and the same has been transferred to the Chief Minister (which gives absolute power to the Chief Minister of State by holding elections); andreplaced ‘election’ of the deputy speaker for 'selection’.The reliefs sought in the plea are as follows:Order declaring the notification as unconstitutional and illegal in the eyes of law;Stay on the effect and operation of the notification pending the hearing of the PIL.