Counsels duel on defection, alliances revived

The last day of oral arguments on the Shiv Sena disqualification petitions focused on key conflicts. The case is set to be closed by January 10.

NAGPUR

HT Image

On the last day of the oral arguments on the disqualification petitions of the two Shiv Sena factions, Mahesh Jethmalani, counsel for the Shinde-led Shiv Sena, and Devadatt Kamat, counsel for Shiv Sena (UBT), chose to shine light on key points of conflict that came up in past arguments, both at the Vidhan Sabha in Nagpur and state legislature’s premises in Nariman Point, before that.

After arguing that the legislature party headed by Eknath Shinde took decisions related to legislative affairs and not the political party headed by Thackeray, Jethmalani sought to establish that Shinde’s was the original party. He contended that the action outside of the house (in Guwahati and Surat) cannot lead to the disqualification of the member. Kamat remarked Jethmalani’s arguments will sound the death knell of schedule 10 of the constitution.

Jethmalani argued that Thackeray faction asking to disqualify the Shinde camp MLAs on the ground that they did not attend the party meetings on June 21 and 22, 2022, did not hold water. He said the meeting that took place during the split was convened by legislature party, which was headed by Shinde. He also contended that according to the records, the party constitution was amended in 1999 and everything thereafter was fabricated. To establish this point he referenced the Election Commission of India’s (ECI) order which stated that there were no records of the 2018 amendment (claimed by the Thackeray faction).

His other argument against Sena (UBT) was the party using the national executive and Pratinidhi Sabha (core committee) interchangeably but they are not one.

On June 30, the day Shinde was sworn in as chief minister, Uddhav Thackeray wrote to him stating that he had been removed from the post of legislative party leader for his anti-party activities. Jethmalani questioned why the letter was sent on June 30 when Thackeray faction had already considered the defection a week earlier. “The letter was written in fit of anger at Shinde’s action, which was not an anti-party activity, neither did he voluntarily give up his membership,” he said.

At this point, speaker Rahul Narwekar said a process must be followed for an action through a resolution passed by the national executive or Pratinidhi Sabha.

Jethmalani also argued that schedule 10 will not be applicable to Shinde faction MLAs as they joined hands with the original allies from the pre-poll alliance. He said Shinde was unaware till June 30 that he would be named CM. He also cited the SC order which states that the resolution passed on June 21, 2022, was signed by 34 MLAs, who did not wish to exit the MVA government. Among those 34, were the MLAs who signed a resolution on June 28 (in Guwahati) and a few were also ministers in Thackeray government, he added.

In his rejoinder, Kamat submitted that if Jethmalani’s argument that schedule 10 does not apply to Shinde as he and his supporters returned to the original ally, it would sound the death knell for the schedule. Alluding to Nitish Kumar forming the government with BJP in 2016, Kamat said: “If the post-poll alliance is illegal then all MLAs from the alliance have to be disqualified. Is that the correct interpretation of the law? What about joining hands with NCP (in the present Shinde government) against whom you fought the election?”

Kamat also questioned why none of the Shinde faction MLAs wrote to Thackeray against forming the MVA.

The case is closed for the verdict by speaker by January 10.