The Supreme Court expressed its displeasure on Monday with the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly's delay in considering disqualification petitions resulting from the schism within the Shiv Sena party between the Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde camps, news agency PTI reported. Over delay in deciding pleas for disqualification of Shiv Sena MLA, CJI DY Chandrachud stated: "Speaker has to honour dignity of SC." The top court has directed the Maharashtra assembly speaker to establish a deadline for resolving disqualification petitions filed by Shiv Sena MLAs.






The Court stated that the Speaker cannot indefinitely postpone proceedings under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution and that the Court's directives must be followed, LiveLaw reported.


"SG, he must make a decision. He can't do so (delay the verdict)," Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud informed the Speaker's representative Solicitor General Tushar Mehta.


"What did the Speaker do after the court's May 11 judgement?" CJI questioned, referring to the Constitution Bench's decision this year directing the Speaker to consider the disqualification petitions within a "reasonable time."


The bench, which included CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, was deliberating on a petition filed by Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray) party MP Sunil Prabhu, who asked the Maharashtra Speaker to order the disqualification of rebel Sena MLAs led by Eknath Shinde. 


The bench noticed that thirty-four petitions had been filed by both parties against each other seeking the disqualification of fifty-six MLAs. The bench ordered that the petitions be listed before the Speaker within one week, after which the Speaker must provide procedural directions for completing the record and scheduling hearings.


“We now direct that the procedural directions shall be issued by the speaker within a week setting out a timeline to complete the proceedings. The solicitor general shall inform the court about the timeline being set for disposing of the proceedings,” the bench was quoted by PTI in its report. 


Entire Process Has Become 'Farce': Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal


Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, stated that various representations were conveyed to the Speaker following the May 11 judgement. Because no action was taken, the current writ suit was filed on July 4 and notice was issued on July 14. 


Sibal went on to say that the Speaker did nothing after that. When the petition was presented for listing on September 18, the Speaker listed it on September 14, stating that the petitioners had not supplied annexures.


According to Sibal, the Speaker then deferred the subject to be heard in "due course" without specifying a date. He went on to say that the Shinde group MLAs had filed responses totaling hundreds of pages.


Sibal called the entire process a "farce" and requested the Supreme Court to give precise instructions to the Speaker. He stated that the Speaker functions as a Tribunal when determining a case under the tenth schedule of the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court can issue a mandamus to a Tribunal. He also cited to Justice RF Nariman's decision, which imposed a three-month deadline for the Speaker to determine a case under the tenth schedule.


'We Cannot Ridicule Speaker In Front Of Constitutional Body': SG Mehta


Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General, objected to Sibal's arguments, alleging he was "ridiculing" a constitutional authority.


"Let's not forget one thing- Speaker is a constitutional functionary...we cannot ridicule him in front of other constitutional body. We may not like him but that's not how we deal with this", SG was quoted by LiveLaw in its report.


However, CJI stated: "It appears that nothing has happened". "You can't say that I'll hear it in due course. You have to keep giving dates", CJI added. SG then inquired if a Speaker might provide to the Court information of his day-to-day operations. In response to this, the CJI said: "He's a tribunal under the tenth schedule. As a tribunal he's amenable under this court's jurisdiction...the Speaker has to abide by the dignity of the Supreme Court. 11th May- months have passed and only notice has been issued," LiveLaw reported.