New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday directed Maharashtra assembly speaker Rahul Narwekar to decide on a bunch of disqualification petitions linked to the vertical split in the Shiv Sena by December 31 and those connected to the split in the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) by January 31, emphasising that sanctity of the anti-defection law must be maintained.
The top court’s deadline on the politically sensitive cases — the Sena split brought down the then Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government last year and the NCP fissures added a new party, and deputy chief minister, to the ruling coalition earlier this year — means that the issue will be decided well in time for the general elections next summer, and state polls expected in October 2024.
“The sanctity of the 10th Schedule (anti-defection law) has to be maintained. It cannot be thrown to the wind,” remarked a bench, headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, as it shot down Narwekar’s plea to give him more time for deciding the two batches of disqualification petitions.
While Narwekar pressed for time at least till January 31 to decide the petitions pertaining to the vertical split in Sena last year, the bench, which also comprised justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, remained emphatic that the speaker must decide by December 31.
“Procedural wranglings between contesting parties cannot delay the disposal of these petitions… These proceedings cannot linger on until elections are announced, and the petitions are rendered infructuous. That seems to be the idea,” said the bench while fixing the deadlines for the speaker.
“I will not speak without reading the written order,” Narwekar said on Monday, responding to the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Spokespersons of the Shiv Sena (UBT) and NCP said they were pleased with the order.
“Eknath Shinde will be disqualified and deputy chief minister Ajit Pawar will also face the same action,” said Thackeray faction leader Anil Parab who has been handling the party’s legal affairs.”
During a previous hearing on October 13, the apex court pulled up Narwekar, commenting that he reduced the adjudication of the disqualification petitions to a “charade”, and adding that the speaker could not defeat the orders of the apex court by delaying his decision.
At least 39 petitions were filed against Maharashtra chief minister Eknath Shinde and lawmakers who backed him during the rebellion against Uddhav Thackeray last year. More than a dozen petitions remain pending against the legislators of the Thackeray group too.
Upon disqualification, a member of a House loses membership, and the seat is declared vacant. A consistent line of Supreme Court rulings has held that disqualification relates back to the date when the act of defection takes place. Thus, it is not only the membership of the 39 lawmakers but also the position of Shinde as chief minister that is at stake.
In its brief order, the bench recorded that it gave Narwekar repeated opportunities to come up with a firm and reasonable timeline for the disposal of the disqualification petitions filed by the Thackeray camp against the Shinde faction but was now constrained to issue a direction to the speaker, fixing an outer time limit. The court took note that there is a week-long Diwali break in November and that the assembly will be shifted to Nagpur for a week during the winter session in December.
Solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing Narwekar, requested the bench not to entertain the plea for supervising the procedure before the speaker but the court responded that it is left with no alternative when the speakers choose not to decide. “Our judgment was delivered in May and the incidents in question are from last year. He must decide,” it told Mehta.
It gave Narwekar a month more to decide the disqualification petitions filed by the Sharad Pawar camp against 40 MLAs for anti-party activities after noting that these pleas were filed only in July after Ajit Pawar split the party and joined the coalition government in the state as deputy chief minister.
The court’s order in the Shiv Sena case came while hearing a petition by Sunil Prabhu, a Shiv Sena (UBT) legislator in Maharashtra assembly, who as the chief whip of the undivided Sena, had filed separate disqualification petitions under the 10th schedule of the Constitution against 39 Sena MLAs, including Shinde. These petitions accused the rebel MLAs of defying the party whip in the House for the election of the speaker and the floor test.
The Shiv Sena suffered a vertical split last year when Shinde and 39 other legislators walked out of the party then led by Thackeray and joined hands with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to form the government. By its judgment on May 11, a Constitution bench invalidated the Maharashtra governor’s decision asking then CM Thackeray to face a floor test last year and flagged a flurry of errors during the political drama that toppled the MVA government, but refused to put Thackeray back in the saddle because he voluntarily resigned instead of facing the trust vote in the assembly.
At the time, the court left it for Narwekar to decide the disqualification petitions pending against both Shinde and Thackeray groups, rejecting Thackeray camp’s plea that the court should decide the disqualification petitions by itself because of the alleged bias of the BJP leader. By a separate decision on February 17, 2022, the Election Commission ruled that Shinde’s faction will inherit Shiv Sena party’s name and its bow-and-arrow symbol.
NCP suffered a similar fate in July this year, prompting Sharad Pawar loyalist Jayant Patil to move the top court, seeking a directive to Narwekar for a time-bound disposal of the disqualification petitions filed against Ajit Pawar and the MLAs backing him.
Patil’s petition was filed before the Supreme Court on September 24, lamenting that Narwekar was sitting over the disqualification petitions for the last three months. The Sharad Pawar camp filed three petitions for disqualification of rebel MLAs. The first petition was filed against nine MLAs, including Ajit Pawar; the second petition was against 20 MLAs; and the third against 11 MLAs.
