E-Paper
Speaker will now decide on plea against Shinde’s camp, Supreme Court told
The affidavits by the secretary and Prabhu have been filed in response to the two petitions moved by the Shinde-camp on June 26, seeking to restrain Zirwal from disqualifying the dissident MLAs at the instance of Prabhu.
Maharashtra’s newly-elected assembly speaker and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Rahul Narwekar is empowered in law to decide the disqualification petitions pending against state chief minister Eknath Shinde and other dissident MLAs of Shiv Sena, the secretary of the Maharashtra legislative assembly has told the Supreme Court.
Submitting an affidavit in response to petitions filed by Shinde and 15 other rebel MLAs against adjudication of disqualification proceedings against them by deputy speaker Narhari Zirwal, the secretary of the assembly has said that the disqualification proceedings shall now be undertaken by the speaker and not the deputy speaker.
Zirwal belongs to former chief minister Uddhav Thackeray’s camp while Narwekar is a leader of BJP, which has supported Shinde in his rebellion and in forming the new government in Maharashtra after forcing Thackeray to resign.
“In view of the recent election on Rahul Narwekar as the honourable speaker of the Maharashtra legislative assembly, the said disqualification petitions are now to be adjudicated upon by the honourable speaker by virtue of powers vested in him under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution,” said the secretary’s affidavit. The Tenth Schedule envisages the anti-defection law and provides for disqualification of legislators for anti-party activities.
The assembly secretary’s response has come even as the Uddhav-faction has implored the Supreme Court to decide the pending disqualification pleas against the rebel MLAs by itself and not leave the decision to the new speaker.
Uddhav-loyalists Sunil Prabhu and Subhash Desai, in their separate pleas, have said that the top court should transfer the disqualification petitions against Shinde and others to itself and decide them using the court’s extraordinary powers under Article 142.
Prabhu, in his affidavit, said that Narwekar should not be allowed to decide the disqualification petitions since the latter has already shown his bias by recognising Shinde as the leader of the Shiv Sena legislative party.
“The newly elected speaker has already by his conduct displayed the real and clear danger/ apprehension of bias in favour of Eknath Shinde and the other delinquent MLAs who have voted in his support to appoint him the speaker in quid pro quo to the benefits they are reaping presently,” said Prabhu in his affidavit.
The affidavits by the secretary and Prabhu have been filed in response to the two petitions moved by the Shinde-camp on June 26, seeking to restrain Zirwal from disqualifying the dissident MLAs at the instance of Prabhu.
Shinde and 15 other MLAs had then told the court that Zirwal could not be allowed to adjudicate the disqualification notices against them since they had already moved a notice for Zirwal’s own removal as deputy speaker. On June 27, the top court had put the disqualification proceedings against the Shinde-faction in abeyance while issuing notices on the petitions.
Two days later, the Uddhav-faction approached the Supreme Court against the Governor’s order to Uddhav to prove his majority on the floor of the House but a vacation bench of justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala refused to interfere. Hours later, on June 29, Uddhav resigned as chief minister, paving the way for Shinde to take the helm as CM on June 30 with the support of dissident MLAs of Shiv Sena and BJP.
Meanwhile, Maharashtra assembly’s deputy speaker Zirwal has also filed his affidavit in the Supreme Court, arguing that the notice for his removal by the Shinde-camp was not valid because not only the notice failed to disclose the specific charge against him but it was also moved when the assembly was not in session.
Defending his position in the Maharashtra legislative assembly, Zirwal submitted an affidavit to state that he had refused to take on record the removal notice handed over to his office on June 21 following a number of discrepancies. The notice contained signatures of 39 MLAs of the Shinde-camp.
“It was my duty to verify and ascertain the authenticity as well as the genuineness of the purported notice seeking my removal as admittedly none of those MLAs had either met me or I had any means to conclusively determine whether the signatures are of the said MLAs,” said Zirwal.
Under the provisions of the Constitution, parliamentary convention and assembly rules, Zirwal claimed, a notice for removal can be given only when the assembly is in session. “Therefore, the notice was never a valid notice under Article 179(c) of the Constitution,” he added. Article 179(c) deals with removal of the speaker and deputy speaker of a legislative assembly.
According to Zirwal, the notice must also state the specific charge against the speaker. “Merely stating that the speaker/deputy speaker does not enjoy the confidence of the majority cannot be treated as a charge which would result in removal of the speaker/deputy speaker from his post,” stated the affidavit.
Zirwal further said that there was no illegality in giving just 48 hours to Shinde and 15 other rebel MLAs for responding to the disqualification notices since the timeline for filing of reply is purely discretionary.
“In the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the petitioners (Shinde faction) have within 24 hours approached the Supreme Court and challenged the notice issued by me, I fail to understand as to how and why 48 hours’ notice for them to file their replies in the first instance is itself unreasonable and violate rules of natural justice,” contended Zirwal.
