Sena Vs Sena: SC Asks If Maharashtra Speaker's Verdict Is Contrary To Its Judgement, Seeks Digital Records

The court while hearing the petition asked whether Maharashtra Speaker's verdict would be contradictory to the Supreme Court's Judgment for relying on legislative majority to arrive at a decision.

The court directed the Shinde faction to file their reply before or on April 1.

Source : PTI

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard the petition moved by Uddhav Thackrey faction against the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker's verdict on cross-petitions filed by two factions of Shiv Sena. The court while hearing the petition asked whether the Speaker's verdict would be contradictory to the Supreme Court's Judgment for relying on legislative majority to arrive at a decision.

A bench headed by CJI DY Chandrachud passed an order saying that the court will hear and dispose of the matter on April 9. The court also said that it is keeping the question of maintainability of the Udhhav Thackrey faction's petition open. The court also asked for original records of hearing in the disqualification petition from the Speaker's office. The court directed the Shinde faction to file their reply before or on April 1.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the Uddhav faction told the court that the term of Maharashtra Assembly will expire in October-November 2024. Saying that time is of essence in this case, Sibal urged the court to consider the case. Sibal further said that despite the top court's notice they did not file a response.

"I just want to say that the term of the assembly expires itself in October-November of this year. So time is of essence. Your lordships have rendered a judgment. They haven't filed a reply. They have gone to the High Court. If we are sent to the High Court, this matter will never be over." Sibal told the court.

On this, the CJI DY Chandrachud said that the court might have to lay down a timeline for the case.

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appearing for the Shinde factions said that there is a lot of forgery in the matter and they will be filing an application in the court.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also appearing for Uddhav faction said that the Speaker gave a verdict on legislative majority.

"...there is a question of legislative majority against the organisational majority post defection, legislative majority will not apply. Your lordships' judgment has held so." Singhvi told the court.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve appearing for Shinde side said that to some extent he agrees with Singhvi, But what your lordships are called upon to decide is not the question of legislative majority but the submission of fabricated documents in courts including the top court by the Uddhav faction.

He contended that the document produced on the resolution of June 2022, is purported to be signed by four persons and some of them did not attend the meeting.

On the other hand, Sibal said that the Shinde faction also quoted the 2018 constitution in the high court and Supreme Court earlier. And then the Speaker suddenly said that the Constitution is invalid and relied on the 1999 Constitution.

The Uddhav faction argued that the top court's judgment in Subhash Desai decided legislative majority cannot be the basis for test of defection.

The CJI also remarked that paragraph 144 of the Speaker's verdict says, "which faction is the real party is discernible from the legislative majority.." Is that not contrary to our judgment?

Shinde factions however maintained that the documents produced by the Uddhav faction had misled the courts with brazenly fabricated documents. They further disputed the authenticity of the resolution of June 2022 passed by Shiv Sena under Uddhav Thackeray.

The Supreme Court had earlier issued notices to Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and other MLAs of his group on the petition filed by Uddhav Thackeray faction of Shiv Sena challenging the January 10 verdict of Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar on the disqualification petitions. However, they had not yet filed their response. The Shinde group wants their plea against the Speaker's verdict to not disqualify the Uddhav faction's MLAs to be heard in the Bombay High Court first.

 

Earlier, the top court had asked Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal whether the case should be heard by the Supreme Court or High Court. Sibal told the court that since Narwekar's verdict goes against the Supreme Court's judgement in the Subhash Desai case, the case should be heard by the top court.

 

The Shiv Sena faction led by Uddhav Thackeray on January 15 moved the Supreme Court against Maharashtra speaker Rahul Narwekar dismissing disqualification petitions against Eknath Shinde and 38 MLAs. Following this the Shinde faction challenged the verdict in Bombay High Court.

Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar pronounced his verdict on January 10 in favour of the Eknath Shinde faction of Shiv Sena on Wednesday. 

Narwekar said that he relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in the Subhash Desai case, and the jurisdiction of the Speaker in deciding defection petitions as provided by the 10th Schedule of the Indian Constitution, which deals with the anti-defection law.

The Speaker, while delivering his verdict, said he was of the view that the last relevant constitution of the Shiv Sena with the Election Commission of India was the one submitted in 1999, and not the 2018 one. The apex court had asked the Speaker to consider the relevant constitution to arrive at a decision.

Pronouncing the verdict in Shinde's favour, Narwekar said the Shinde faction was the real political Shiv Sena when the rival faction emerged on June 21, 2022, as it had the overwhelming majority of 37 of 55 MLAs.