SC decision to refer petitions to larger bench gives little leeway to Shinde govt

With the Supreme Court referring a clutch of petitions related to the split in Shiv Sena to a constitution bench, the seven-week-old Eknath Shinde-Devendra Fadnavis government has got a brief respite

With the Supreme Court referring a clutch of petitions related to the split in Shiv Sena to a constitution bench, the seven-week-old Eknath Shinde-Devendra Fadnavis government has got a brief respite. However, the uncertainty continues as the hearing is expected to go on for some more time.

Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde HT Archives

Legislators in the Shinde camp are hopeful that the apex court will admit their contention that the defection by 40 Sena MLAs is out of the purview of the anti-defection law.

“Our faction has been contesting that we are the real Sena and the whip issued by the Uddhav Thackeray-led party is not applicable to us as it lacks power outside the legislature. If the contention was accepted there could be no threat to the government,” a senior leader, requesting anonymity, said.

The leader also said that the first state cabinet expansion was carried out only after they realised that there was no immediate threat to the government. The hearing before the constitution bench is expected to go on for at least three to four months, he said. “Until then the decision on the allotment of the symbol may have come from the Election Commission of India [ECI]. If it comes in our favour, it will be a major victory. We have also contended that the hearing related to the disqualification of the 16 MLAs should be held before the speaker as the matter pertains to the state legislature.”

The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred to a five-judge bench the petitions filed by Sena and the Shinde-led camp over the issues related to defection, merger, and disqualification that took place during the political crisis in June. The petitions will be heard on Thursday.

The apex court has been hearing the petitions challenging the disqualification of 16 rebel MLAs who had been served notices by deputy chairman Narhari Zirawal and the no-confidence motion moved against Zirawal, and the pleas related to the claims over the party symbol from both sides and the validity of the whip issued by Thackeray.

The leader quoted above said that the government wants the local body elections delayed as it will be more beneficial to the ruling alliance. “We will be able to take our performance to the voters in the next few months and this will help us turn the sentiment in our favour. It will also help us subside the sympathy for the Thackerays.”

A Sena leader admitted that the decision to constitute a larger bench has given more time to the government. “The state took more than 40 days to expand the cabinet. It was an indication that they realised that there would not be an immediate ruling on it. We have been trying to delay the hearing before the ECI as we expect the decision on the party symbol to be taken by the apex court.”

Sena MP Vinayak Raut said the final verdict should come in a time-bound manner. “The future course of Maharashtra politics depends solely on the verdict of the SC. The court is requested to take not much time and deliver its ruling in a specific period.”

Retired Bombay high court judge and social activist BG Kolse Patil said the hearing before the constitution bench may take longer. “Tuesday’s decision should have been taken in the first hearing a month ago considering the urgency of the matter. Though the disqualification of the 16 members and a decision on the party symbol come within the purview of the state legislature and the ECI respectively, the issues related to the constitutional framework need to be decided in the apex court.”

Advocate Asim Sarode, representing petitioners who have moved the SC demanding a voters’ right bill in the wake of the crisis, said, “ The constitution bench is expected to look into all the issues, including the disqualification, right over the party symbol, and removal of the deputy speaker, as these are related to the fundamental legal framework.”