The Supreme Court on Thursday distilled the essence of the case between the Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde factions of the Shiv Sena that resulted in a sudden change in government in Maharashtra last year to a single question: whether the 2016 Nabam Rebia (then Arunachal Pradesh speaker) judgment has to now be reconsidered by a larger, seven-judge bench of the court.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha reserved its order for Friday.
The 2016 judgment says the speaker of a legislative assembly cannot consider disqualification petitions against any member when there is a notice seeking his (or her) own removal that is pending.
Also Read: State to immediately release funds for MSRTC employees’ January salaries
Lawyers for the Thackeray faction argued that the 2016 judgment was the basis on which the rival Shiv Sena faction led by present chief minister Eknath Shinde obtained time from the Supreme Court on June 27 to reply to the disqualification notices issued by then deputy speaker Narhari Zirwal till July 12. Zirwal had originally given them time till June 29.
The court’s judgment stopped the speaker from proceeding against rebel Shiv Sena MLAs, including Shinde, and the government headed by Thackeray resigned on June 29. It was their case that the June 27 order came to be passed as the Shinde camp relied on the 2016 decision to seek more time.
Also Read: Ramesh Bais to take charge as Maharashtra governor on February 18
At the core of the top court’s deliberation is whether the 2016 judgment allows disaffected legislators to pre-emptively seek removal of the speaker before rebelling against the party and seeking a regime change or simply prevents a leader who has lost the confidence of the majority of his party from disqualifying those against him with the assistance of the speaker, thereby hanging on to his post.
The Shinde faction’s argument is straightforward: that revisiting the Rebia judgment on disqualification does not make sense because a planned trust vote in Maharashtra never took place, which means the legislators whom the speaker sought to disqualify never had to vote.
After a rebellion by Shinde and a bunch of legislators against then chief minister Thackeray, the latter’s faction, on June 25 were served a disqualification notice by the deputy speaker. A day later, Shinde and the others approached the top court. After the court’s June 27 ruling, the governor ordered a floor test. The test never happened because the government headed by Thackeray resigned on June 29.