Maharashtra: Supreme Court Refers Sena Vs Sena To Larger Constitution Bench

The Nabam Rebia case’s 2016 ruling was referred to a larger panel by the Supreme Court on Thursday.

The Supreme Court was giving its ruling in the case of the 16 MLAs who left the Shiv Sena, which was then led by Uddhav Thackeray, in June 2022. Under the nation’s anti-defection law, the Thackeray faction demanded the MLAs’ disqualification.

According to the Nabam Rebia ruling, Speakers are not permitted to issue notifications of disqualification while a notice of removal is pending.

The Supreme Court further stated that the Speaker could move on with petitions seeking the disqualification of the MLAs if he determines that the motion for his removal is not in accordance with process.

The Speaker’s selection of Bharat Gogawale, according to the supreme court, was legal.

The top court said that the Speaker should recognize only the whip appointed by the political party.

A five-judge Constitution bench, which also included Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, handed down the decision. The court was presided over by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.

A group of cross-petitioners on the political situation in Maharashtra, including Uddhav Thackeray and the factions of chief minister M. Eknath Shinde, submitted the ruling, which was decided by a five-judge panel.

Once Thackeray made the decision to step down, the then-governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari invited Shinde to join the Bharatiya Janata Party in forming the administration.

The court had earlier reserved the order after all the parties concluded their arguments.

The 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 vote.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Uddhav Thackeray’s 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 alliances.

During the hearing, the Court had observed that Governor should not enter into any area which precipitates the fall of a government and called Maharashtra’s political crisis a “serious issue for democracy”.

The 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 camp.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Maharashtra Governor and explained to the Court about the Governor’s decision to call for a floor test after a rival camp wrote that they were withdrawing support from Uddhav Thackeray-led government as they did not want to continue.

Uddhav Thackeray camp had submitted before the Supreme Court that if a crisis like in Maharastra was permitted then it will have far-reaching consequences for the country as any government can be toppled.

The 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 camp.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Maharashtra Governor and explained to the Court about the Governor’s decision to call for a floor test after a rival camp wrote that they were withdrawing support from Uddhav Thackeray-led government as they did not want to continue.

Solicitor 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 majority.

Also read: Punjab: Third Blast Near Golden Temple In Amritsar In Five Days Leaving Entire Punjab Terrified

With ANI Inputs