Uddhav faction moves SC to expedite disqualification pleas against Shinde, others

The split within the Shiv Sena had led to the fall of the Maha Vikas Aghadi government led by Uddhav Thackeray and installed Eknath Shinde as CM on 30 June 2022 with the BJP’s support

The Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena faction approached the Supreme Court on Tuesday seeking a direction against the Maharashtra assembly Speaker for a time-bound decision on the disqualification petitions pending against chief minister Eknath Shinde and other legislators of the Shiv Sena who sided with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in June last year.

Supreme Court of India. (ANI File Photo)

The split within the Shiv Sena had led to the fall of the Maha Vikas Aghadi government led by Uddhav Thackeray and installed Shinde as CM on 30 June 2022, with the BJP providing the required numbers to form government.

The petition was filed by Sunil Prabhu, Shiv Sena legislator in the Maharashtra assembly who as the chief whip of the undivided Shiv Sena had filed separate disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution against 39 Shiv Sena MLAs, including Shinde for defying the party decree in the House for the election of Speaker and conduct of floor test.

The Constitution bench of the top court on May 11, while deciding on an array of issues arising out of the vertical split within the Shiv Sena, had refused to decide on the issue of disqualification and left it to the Speaker.

Prabhu stated that since the decision of the top court, he wrote three reminders to Speaker Rahul Narwekar on May 15, May 23 and June 2 this year to take up the pleas as not a single hearing had been conducted since the court passed the judgment.

“The respondent Speaker in brazen disregard to his constitutional duties as a neutral arbiter has sought to delay the adjudication of the disqualification petitions, thereby, permitting the illegal continuance of Eknath Shinde as chief minister, against whom the disqualification petitions are pending,” the petition said.

The disqualification petitions were filed by Prabhu on behalf of the undivided Shiv Sena initially against Shinde and 15 other MLAs on 23 June 2022. On this, notices were issued last year but no responses have been filed till date. Subsequently, Prabhu moved disqualification petitions against two independent MLAs on June 25 last year, against 22 Shiv Sena MLAs on June 27 followed by two separate sets of disqualification petitions on July 3 and July 5 against 39 MLAs (including Shinde) for violating the party whip.

The Uddhav Thackeray faction stated in its plea that the Speaker is bound to act under the Constitution in a fair, unbiased manner and this obligation requires the Speaker to decide disqualification pleas in an expeditious manner. The petition prayed to the top court to direct time-bound disposal of the disqualification pleas and preferably within two weeks.

“The Speaker’s inaction in deciding the disqualification proceedings is an act of grave constitutional impropriety as his inaction is allowing MLAs who are liable to be disqualified to continue in the assembly and to hold responsible positions in the government of Maharashtra including that of the chief minister,” it said.

While deciding the constitutional questions on whether the court should decide on the issue of disqualification if the action of the Speaker is alleged to be biased, the top court said in its May 11 verdict, “This court cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule in the first instance. There are no extraordinary circumstances in the instant case that warrant the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court to adjudicate disqualification petitions. The Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period.”

The court further held that the disqualification of a person for being a member of the House has drastic consequences for the member concerned and by extension, for the citizens of that constituency. Hence, “any question of disqualification ought to be decided by following the procedure established by law” under the Tenth Schedule.

In doing so, the court had cited earlier judgments and laid down that the Speaker is expected to act “fairly, independently, and impartially” while deciding the disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule as ultimately, the decision of the Speaker is subject to judicial review.