If there is one person who holds all the cards after the Supreme Court verdict in the Maharashtra political crisis case, it is the Speaker of the Maharashtra legislative assembly, Rahul Narwekar.
Thanks to the constitution bench judgment, Narwekar, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, has emerged the exclusive authority to take a call on a spectrum of issues -- from deciding the disqualification petitions to identifying the “real” Shiv Sena; from recognising the new chief whip of SHiv Sena to notifying its leader of the House.
In its 141-page judgment, the bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya y Chandrachud emphatically affirmed the election of Narwekar, even as it quashed his decisions on July 3 to recognise Eknath Shinde as the leader of the Shiv Sena legislature party and Bharat Gogawale as the chief whip. At the same time, the apex court left it to Narwekar to recognise the new leader of the Shiv Sena legislature party and the chief whip again following an enquiry by him into the state of affairs when there could be two factions of the same party (Shiv Sena).
While the Thackeray camp claimed that Narwekar’s election was illegal since he got the support of Eknath Shinde and the other rebel MLAs, the top court was emphatic that every member of the House was entitled to participate in the proceedings of the House until he or she was not declared disqualified following the procedure laid down under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law).
{{/usCountry}}While the Thackeray camp claimed that Narwekar’s election was illegal since he got the support of Eknath Shinde and the other rebel MLAs, the top court was emphatic that every member of the House was entitled to participate in the proceedings of the House until he or she was not declared disqualified following the procedure laid down under the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law).
{{/usCountry}}“An MLA has the right to participate in the proceedings of the House until they are disqualified...The decision of the Speaker does not relate back to the date when the MLA indulged in prohibitory conduct. The decision of the Speaker and the consequences of disqualification are prospective,” declared the bench.
Noting that the constitutional sanctity of the proceedings in Parliament or the state legislatures cannot be set in a state of uncertainty, it also junked Thackeray’s plea that Narwekar’s position should be subject to the outcome of the pending disqualification petitions against Shinde and the MLAs supporting him.
“For the above reasons, the action of the House in electing the Speaker, Mr Rahul Narwekar, on 3 July 2022 is not invalid merely because some MLAs who participated in the election faced disqualification proceedings,” said the court.
It then went on to hold that since Narwekar has been duly elected by the MLAs in terms of the procedure laid down under the 1960 Maharashtra Assembly Rules, he is “the appropriate constitutional authority to decide the question of disqualification under the Tenth Schedule”.
“We are also unable to accept the alternative submission of the petitioners to direct the Deputy Speaker to adjudicate the question of disqualification for the simple reason that the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly has duly elected the Speaker, who has been entrusted with the authority to decide disqualification petitions under the Constitution. The Deputy Speaker can perform the duties of the Speaker only when the office of the Speaker is vacant,” said the bench, leaving it to Narwekar to decide the disqualification petitions pending against MLAs of both factions.
The court, in its verdict, quashed the recognition of Shinde and Gogawale as the leader of the Shiv Sena legislature party and the chief whip of the Shiv Sena respectively, noting that he did not conduct any exercise to ascertainof they were duly authorised by the political party through a valid resolution.
“In a contentious situation such as this, the Speaker should have conducted an independent inquiry based on the rules and regulations of the political party to identify the Whip authorised by the Shiv Sena Political Party,” said the bench.
It directed that the Speaker shall recognize the Whip and the Leader who are duly authorised by the Shiv Sena political party with reference to the provisions of the party constitution, after conducting an enquiry in this regard and in keeping with the principles discussed in this judgement.
While deciding the disqualification petitions as well the recognition of the party leaders in the House, the bench underscored that the Speaker will also determine who the “real” political party is when there are two factions.
“Further, the Speaker must not base their decision as to which group constitutes the political party on a blind appreciation of which group possesses a majority in the Legislative Assembly. This is not a game of numbers, but of something more. The structure of leadership outside the legislative assembly is a consideration which is relevant to the determination of this issue,” it said.
The bench, however, clarified that the Speaker’s determination of the real party is a prima facie determination and will not impact any other proceedings including the proceedings before the Election Commission under the Symbols Order.
It is also expected that Narwekar’s decisions in future are likely to land at the court’s doorstep all over again with the Thackeray camp laying fresh legal challenges.