Adv Kaul said that Shinde and other MLAs didn't approach HC as a minority of the legislative party is "subverting the state machinery, attacking their houses". He said, "They're threatening that our dead bodies will return from Assam. The atmosphere is not conducive for us to exercise our rights in Mumbai."Defending the rejection of the resolution for the removal of the Deputy Speaker, Abhishek Singhvi contended that the email was sent from unverified sources and that it was not a notice. However, Justice Kant asked, "In the light of Nabam Rebia, can the Speaker be a judge in his own cause and reject the notice as invalid"? Singhvi responded, "On 20th these MLAs went to Surat, on 21st they are supposed to have written this mail, on 22nd Speaker recieved this notice, and we are nowhere near 14 days". Thereafter, the bench expressed willingness to let the Deputy Speaker file documents on record.
Representing the Uddhav Thackeray camp, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi questioned the petitioners "leap frogging" to the Supreme Court without approaching the High Court first. "No reason given by Mr.Kaul why your lordships should not exercise the discretion to send them to HC," he submitted. Moreover, he pointed out that the courts haven't interfered when the proceedings are pending before the Speaker in any case barring for the Rajasthan High Court in 2020. Referring to the Kihoto judgment, he said that no action will lie before the court till the Speaker decides finally. Eknath Shinde stated in the Supreme Court that it is inconsequential if the Assembly is not in session. He averred, "If the assembly is not in session, the Cabinet can recommend convening, or when the assembly convenes the proceedings can start. But what is happening? Without following that, Dy Speaker has issued notices". After the SC hearing resumed, Eknath Shinde's lawyer Neeraj Kaul read out from the 'Nabam Rebia' case- "When the position of a Speaker is under challenge, through a notice of resolution for his removal, it would “seem” just & appropriate, that the Speaker first demonstrates his right to continue as such, by winning support of the majority in the State Legislature". He added, "Why would a Speaker who is confident of his majority, fear a floor test"?