E-Paper
Sena, Delhi services verdicts on Thursday
Both cases carry significant political implications, and the Supreme Court will seek to provide justiciable answers to the issues before it in what will hold crucial precedent
A Supreme Court constitution bench will on Thursday deliver two separate verdicts that will decide the fate of Eknath Shinde, who took over as the chief minister of Maharashtra last year following a rebellion led by him that ousted Uddhav Thackeray from Shiv Sena, and rule on a power tussle between the Centre and the Delhi government over the control of bureaucrats in the national capital.
Both cases carry significant political implications, and the apex court will seek to provide justiciable answers to the issues before it in what will hold crucial precedent.
The five-judge bench is headed by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, and also comprises justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha. According to the list of business published on the court website, both judgments are unanimous and they will be delivered by the CJI on behalf of the bench.
In the Maharashtra case, the legal battle in the Supreme Court commenced on June 27 last year when the court restrained the then deputy speaker of the Maharashtra assembly – a Thackeray loyalist -- from disqualifying a group of rebel Shiv Sena legislators led by Shinde. Two days later, it refused to stay the governor’s direction to the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government of the Shiv Sena-NCP-Congress alliance to face the floor test, and within hours, Thackeray resigned.
Thackeray’s resignation and Shinde’s dramatic take over as CM within 24 hours triggered a spate of petitions by the former’s faction. They challenged the election of the new Speaker, new whip of Shinde-led Shiv Sena, disqualification proceedings initiated against his own MLAs, and the validity of the floor test that witnessed Shinde sailing by with the support of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
In August 2022, the Supreme Court referred the adjudication of legal issues arising out of the split in Shiv Sena to a constitution bench of five judges, noting that the matter “raises important issues” involving the contours of disqualification proceedings and the powers of the Governor and the Speaker in their respective spheres. A three-judge bench had at that time held that the spectrum of legal questions emanating from the tussle between the factions belonging to Shinde and Thackeray requires to be dealt with by a larger bench for an authoritative pronouncement.
In its order of reference, the three-judge bench also doubted the correctness of a 2016 judgment by another five-judge bench in the Nebam Rabia (Arunachal Pradesh disqualification) case in holding that the Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings when his own removal is sought.
The Delhi case involves the continuation of a dispute that two smaller benches failed to resolve — who controls the Capital’s bureaucrat, the lieutenant governor or the elected government?
In May 2022, when it referred the matter to a five-judge bench, the court clarified that the bench shall adjudicate the limited issue relating to ‘services’ in Delhi and that no other substantial issue on interpretation of Article 239AA shall be adjudicated afresh. Article 239AA delineates the legislative and executive powers of the Delhi government while clarifying that three subjects, namely land, police and public order, shall remain under the exclusive domain of the Centre in the capital.
The Centre had pleaded for a fresh adjudication by a Constitution bench to set the boundaries of the the Aam Aadmi Party government in Delhi in so far as it relates to transfer and appoint bureaucrats in the capital since, it contended, a Constitution bench judgment in July 2018 that held that delineated the powers between the two power centres did not specifically hold that the Delhi government could make laws on all subjects other than land, police, and public order.
The AAP government vehemently countered this submission, arguing the 2018 verdict by the constitution bench is unequivocal in demarcating the powers of the Delhi government and that the submissions by the Centre are aimed at eroding the federal structure.
