Shiv Sena verdict based on Supreme Court ‘triple test’ directives, insists Narwekar

Narwekar claimed that the Sena (UBT) had never submitted a copy of its amended constitutions.

MUMBAI: Assembly speaker Rahul Narwekar, who addressed a press conference on Tuesday in response to the town hall event held by Shiv Sena (UBT) chief Uddhav Thackeray, said that he had followed the ‘triple test directives’ of the Supreme Court while deciding on the disqualification petitions filed by the two factions of the Shiv Sena. Narwekar claimed that the Sena (UBT) had never submitted a copy of its amended constitutions, and reiterated that he had taken into account information sent by the Election Commission of India (EC) while dealing with the Sena case.

Maharashtra assembly speaker Rahul Narwekar pronounced his verdict in Shiv Sena MLAs' disqualification petitions on January 10. (ANI)

“The SC had directed me to review the party constitution, the legislative majority and the party structure as it existed when the rival factions came into being,” he said. “It also said that I should consider the party constitution that existed at that point. As per the records obtained from the EC, the official constitution was that of 1999. Although Sena (UBT) leaders have been claiming that copies of the amended constitution of 2013 and 2018 were submitted to the poll body, what was submitted were not documents related to the amendments—they were documents pertaining to the results of the internal elections and the procedure followed for these.”

The speaker said it was a misconception that the SC had termed “illegal” his recognition of Bharat Gogawale as the whip (of the Shinde faction). “The SC had said that the speaker did not follow the procedure to recognise which was the real party and review what was the desire of the party,” he said. “I was asked to follow the procedure before recognising which was the real party and the appointment of the whip.”

Narwekar said that his decision was well within the framework of Schedule 10. “The dissent in the Shiv Sena cannot be termed as anti-party activity, since dissent is a cardinal principle of constitutional democracy,” he said. “The desire of the party chief cannot be the desire of the entire party, and dissenting views cannot be a violation of Schedule 10. If this were the case, the chief of a party could decide to merge with another party and dismiss fellow leaders’ objections as anti-party activity.”

The Sena (UBT) released a video of 2013 today, where Narwekar, then a Shiv Sena member, is seen seconding the resolution to appoint Uddhav Thackeray as the party chief. Questioned on this, the Speaker dismissed it as “irrelevant”, as the SC had asked him to go “as per the records”. “It is also not clear which proposal I supported,” he said, adding for good measure that the video could also be doctored.

Narwekar also slammed Uddhav Thackeray and other Sena (UBT) leaders for using foul language for constitutional institutions like the speaker, governor and Supreme Court. “The press conference appeared to be a Dussehra rally or some gully meeting,” he said. “Thackeray’s remarks were unparliamentary, unconstitutional and tantamount to threatening constitutional institutions.” Narwekar also taunted Thackeray, saying that a party run by a part-time chief (Uddhav), a part-time lawyer (Anil Parab) and a ‘compounder’ (Sanjay Raut) was bound to fail.