E-Paper
‘The ECI record does not bear out the claim that Uddhav Thackeray was chief of the party’
These allegations have been made for the last one year, ever since I started adjudicating this issue, perhaps with the intention of putting pressure on my decision-making process, says Maharashtra assembly speaker Rahul Narwekar
MUMBAI: A day after he gave his verdict in the Sena vs Sena battle and recognised the Eknath Shinde-led faction as the real Shiv Sena, Maharashtra assembly speaker Rahul Narwekar spoke on a host of issues in an exclusive interview with Hindustan Times. Excerpts:
Q. Shiv Sena (UBT) leaders have refused to accept the verdict and have said they will challenge it in the Supreme Court.
A: My job was to give the verdict in accordance with the Constitution of the country. Any citizen can approach the Supreme Court or high court if they feel their fundamental rights have been infringed upon. The order that I have given is absolutely tenable in law, well-reasoned and justified.
Q. Sena (UBT) and other opposition leaders have alleged that the order was prepared in Delhi and you have been advocating the interest of the Shinde faction.
A: These allegations have been made for the last one year, ever since I started adjudicating this issue, perhaps with the intention of putting pressure on my decision-making process. Rather than making baseless allegations, they should analyse the decision, understand it and point out the lacunae in the order.
Q: Do you think you have addressed the directives given by the apex court?
A: All of them. The SC had said: first decide which is the original party, then decide what is its desire and based on that, appoint the whip. Also, while deciding the political party, look at the Constitution, organisational structure and legislative strength of the group. When there is a dispute regarding the party’s Constitution, refer to the Constitution given to the ECI prior to the dispute. Now when such clear criteria were given, where was the scope for me to go beyond?
Q. The SC had also said that you (as the speaker) were wrong in appointing Bharat Gogawale as the Shinde faction’s whip. But you have recognised Gogawale’s appointment in your verdict.
A: There seems to be a misconception about this. The perception is that the SC order stated that the appointment of Eknath Shinde and Bharat Gogawale as legislative party leader and whip respectively was wrong permanently and the recognition given by the deputy speaker to (the Thackeray faction’s) Ajay Chaudhari as legislative party leader and Sunil Prabhu as whip was right permanently. That is absolutely untrue.
The court had, in fact, said that when the dispute arose on June 21, 2022, Uddhav Thackeray wrote a letter to the deputy speaker for the appointment and at that time, it was the only claim before the chair. So the deputy speaker had no reason to think that there was a split in the party.
Later, when I, as the speaker, gave recognition to Shinde and Gogawale as legislative leader and whip respectively, I did so on the basis of the desire of the legislature party. The court said that I knew very well that there was a split in the party and should have found out which was the real political party, and after that recognised its whip. Because this due process was not carried out, the appointment of Gogawale was held to be illegal.
However, the court further said that the speaker, after adjudicating which group represents the (real) party, should give recognition to the whip. So the court had asked me to decide which is the real party and then recognise the whip who represents the will of that party.
Q. You have said that the only Shiv Sena Constitution that exists is the 1999 one. Does it mean that Uddhav Thackeray was not chief of the party?
A: Thackeray was relying on the 2018 Constitution while Shinde was insisting on the 1999 version. The SC clearly said that when there is a dispute with regard to the Constitution, the speaker should consider the one available on the ECI record on the date of the dispute. The ECI informed me that the 1999 Constitution is the only one in their records.
Q. The SC had said that the legislative party should obey the political party’s desire. Your order says that the legislative party’s desire was important, as there was a dispute in the political party.
A: I agree with the SC’s contention that the whip should be appointed as per the desire of the political party because the political party is the wing which expresses the desire of the entire unit. If we were to allow the legislative party to take a decision, then after getting elected they would not be accountable to the political party. Therefore, I feel it is justified. But Schedule 10 should have more clarity to avoid these kinds of situations.
Q. There was surprise that you did not disqualify MLAs from the Thackeray faction.
A: When you are adjudicating a disqualification petition, you have to see that the whip was issued by an appropriate person and if it was served to the MLAs. There was no evidence from the Shinde faction to show that the whip was issued to the Thackeray faction MLAs. Therefore, it was not possible for me to disqualify them.
Q. Does your order mean that the Thackeray faction MLAs will now have to obey the whip issued by the Shinde faction’s Bharat Gogawale?
A: Every member of a legislative party has to follow the whip issued by the whip of the party. There is only one Shiv Sena party that is recognised (on the floor of the assembly). So whoever is the member of the Shiv Sena legislative party will have to follow its whip.
Q. Last time, you had said that Schedule 10 needs a relook to do away with certain ambiguities in it.
A: There is scope to clear many ambiguities. We know that the anti-defection law is an evolving one. Decades ago, it was not as strong as it is today. The deletion of Paragraph 3 of the law has ensured that en masse defection is prevented. The Sena issue and my verdict will throw some light on various other ambiguities.
Q: Will the NCP verdict be on the same lines, given that the split is similar to that of the Sena?
A: The provisions of the law, Constitution and directives of the SC order don’t change from party to party and person to person. But if the facts are different in both the cases, then the situation may demand different applications of the provisions of law.
Stay updated with all the Breaking News and Latest News from Mumbai. Click here for comprehensive coverage of top Cities including Bengaluru, Delhi, Hyderabad, and more across India along with Stay informed on the latest happenings in World News.
