E-Paper
‘SC decision will not affect govt’s survival’
In an exclusive interview to Hindustan Times, Speaker Rahul Narwekar says that by constitutional right, he will decide on the disqualification petition of 16 rebel MLAs. He said, If the court finds the decision taken by the Speaker arbitrary, unconstitutional or against the rule of law, then and only then will the court intervene
Mumbai: With the Supreme Court verdict on the political crisis in the state expected soon, Maharashtra assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar is the man of the moment. Narwekar, as Speaker, could take a decision on the disqualification of the MLAs who split the Shiv Sena and led to the fall of the MVA government in June 2022.
Narwekar, a BJP MLA from South Mumbai, who was elected Speaker before the Eknath Shinde-led government proved its majority, is of the opinion that the SC verdict will not topple the Shinde-Fadnavis government, and even in the event of Shinde’s disqualification, he can continue in the post.
Following Shinde’s rebellion, the Uddhav Thackeray faction had moved the Speaker’s office, seeking the MLAs’ disqualification as members of the assembly under the provisions of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, popularly known as the anti-defection law. Meanwhile, the then Governor B S Koshyari allowed Shinde to take oath following the resignation of then chief minister Uddhav Thackeray.
Excerpts from an exclusive interview to Hindustan Times:
Q: How do you view the awaited SC order on the political crisis in the state?
A: Parliamentary democracy is a democratic system and there are improvisations from time to time. We should also look at this situation to further strengthen democracy by enacting laws which could take care of such situations. If you look at the anti-defection law, it has evolved from what it was decades ago through amendments and out of the situations that arose in the past. I am optimistic that the ambiguities in the law will further result in strengthening parliamentary democracy.
Q. Does this mean the anti-defection law has ambiguities?
A: Certain ambiguities in the law need to be clarified. We have a situation today where a party is considered split politically, but in the legislature there is no representation made for a split. It is considered one party in the state legislature. This is a paradoxical situation which needs to be dealt with and I am sure all of us will learn from it. There needs to be clarity in Schedule 10 of the Constitution with regards to the status of the legislature vis-à-vis political parties in case of a split, and there should also be clarity on the powers of both the bodies.
Q. So according to you, there is only one Shiv Sena in the assembly?
A: As far I am concerned, there has been no representation made by the Shiv Sena led by Shinde that it should be recognised as a separate faction. If any such representation is made to me, I shall take a call in accordance with the Constitution. There are petitions filed before the legislature secretary from both the factions covering all the 55 MLAs.
Q. Do you think that the apex court will ask you to decide on the disqualification of 16 Shiv Sena MLAs?
A: I don’t think the court needs to ask me to decide on the disqualification because this is the right given to the Speaker of the state legislature by the Constitution, and the Speaker is duty-bound to decide on the petition of disqualification. There is no need for direction from any other constitutional authority. I am of the view that the constitutional obligations will be followed by other constitutional machinery (the court) and the Speaker’s right to decide on the disqualification on the basis of anti-defection law will be kept absolute.
Q. Does this mean that the SC will not decide on the disqualification petition?
A: I don’t think there will be any interference with the power of the Speaker. The Speaker will have to decide on disqualification. If the court finds the decision taken by the Speaker arbitrary, unconstitutional or against the rule of law, then and only then will the court intervene.
Q. Can SC ask you to decide on the disqualification in a time-bound manner?
A: There is a procedure laid down to take a decision on disqualification. One will be looking at the evidence, examinations and cross-examinations on both sides, and ultimately natural justice has to be kept in mind. Unless you follow the procedure, you cannot come to a conclusion, and this requires a lot of time. Finally, justice hurried is justice buried and justice delayed is justice denied. There is no reason for the SC to take a decision prior to my decision, and this is my view. I feel that constitutional discipline is required for each constitutional entity to perform their duty. The court is not expected to take the decision. It was done in the past but it has also been challenged, perhaps in a Meghalaya case.
Q. Is uncertainty looming large on the Shinde-Fadnavis government?
A: I feel the survival of the government is decided on the floor of the House, and this government has established its majority. With a number of members supporting it, I don’t think the court’s decision will have any impact on the existence of this government.
Q. What if the chief minister is disqualified?
A: I think the Speaker will decide the disqualification of the members. Though it is a hypothetical question, I have seen in the past that CMs who were not even members of the House still held the post. Sharad Pawar, Uddhav Thackeray and Prithviraj Chavan are examples.
Q. But there was no disqualification petition pending against them.
A: As per the petitions, the disqualification would pertain to the segment from which the member has been elected. It does not bar any person from being a member of the executive. You can be a member of the executive without being a member of either of the Houses. We are overthinking the issue. I don’t think Shinde will be disqualified.
Q. Deputy speaker Narhari Zirwal has said that he will disqualify 16 MLAs from the Shinde faction if the court asks him to decide.
A: It’s his prerogative to comment but I find it a little out of line to comment on a decision which you have to take judiciously. These decisions cannot be impulsively taken; they have to be taken after application of mind and by using evidence and records. In any of these events, I do not think the deputy speaker has any role to play in disqualification.
