The Supreme Court on Thursday reserved its order on whether to refer the cases related to the Maharashtra political crisis to a larger seven-judge bench for reconsideration of a 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment on powers of Assembly Speakers to deal with disqualification pleas.
A five-judge bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha reserved the order after hearing arguments from rival Shiv Sena groups.
Uddhav Thackeray faction of Shiv Sena sought that the five-judge Nabam Rebia case is referred to a seven-judge bench for reconsideration.
In the 2016 Nabam Rebia case, the five-judge Constitution bench had held that Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings when a resolution seeking his removal is pending.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Uddhav Thackeray camp submitted that there is an imperative need to reconsider the law laid down in the Nabam Rebia case.
"It's time for us to relook at Nabam Rebia and the 10th Schedule because it has created havoc," Sibal has said.
The 10th Schedule of the Constitution provides for the prevention of defection of the elected and nominated members from their political party and contains stringent provisions against defections.
In 2016, a five-judge Constitution bench, while deciding the Nabam Rebia case of Arunachal Pradesh, had held that the assembly speaker cannot proceed with a plea for disqualification of MLAs if a prior notice seeking removal of the speaker is a pending decision in the House.
The Nabam Rebia judgment had come to the rescue of the rebel MLAs led by Eknath Shinde, now the chief minister of Maharashtra. The Thackeray faction had sought their disqualification even while a notice of the Shinde group for the removal of Maharashtra assembly deputy speaker Narhari Sitaram Zirwal, a Thackeray loyalist, was pending before the House.
The apex court yesterday asked the arguing advocates to address whether the "tightening" of the 2016 judgment can be undertaken by the five-judge bench currently hearing a batch of petitions arising from the 2022 Shiv Sena-rooted Maharashtra political crisis or be referred to a larger seven-judge bench.
2016 Nabam Rebia's judgment was passed by a five-judge bench and a bench of the same strength cannot interfere with the judgment by a bench of the same strength.
The shinde group cites Nabam Rebia's judgment stating that Deputy Speaker does not have the authority to decide disqualification when a notice for his removal is pending.
While Uddhav Thackeray camp of Shiv Sena has argued in favour of revisiting the 2016 verdict that said that a Speaker faced with a notice seeking his removal cannot exercise powers under the 10th Schedule, Chief Minister Eknath Shinde camp has argued that the 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment was not relevant to the issues arising from Maharashtra political crisis.
Shinde camp has defended the 2016 judgment as correct, which required no relook.
During the hearing of the case, the apex court on Wednesday said that issues arising from the Maharashtra political crisis rooted in the Shiv Sena feud are "tough Constitutional issues" to decide and observed that it may "tighten" a 2016 judgement.
The apex court hearing arguments on whether the matter is heard by a seven-judge bench or by a five-judge bench.
A five-judge Constitution bench was hearing a batch of petitions filed by rival factions Uddhav Thackeray and Chief Minister Eknath Shinde in relation to the Maharashtra political crisis.
( With inputs from ANI )
Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor