The Supreme Court on Monday extended the deadline from June 27 to July 12 for 16 rebel Shiv Sena MLAs to respond to their disqualification notices providing a shot in the arm for the Eknath Shinde-led breakaway faction.
The vacation bench of the Supreme Court also directed the Maharashtra government to ensure that the life and property of the rebelling MLAs were protected.
The Maharashtra political crisis shifted from Guwahati hotels to the courtroom when the Supreme Court heard an urgent plea filed by Shinde against Maharashtra Assembly Deputy Speaker Narihar Zirwal's disqualification notice and the appointment of Ajay Chaudhari, who replaced him as Shiv Sena chief.
Issuing notice, the top court directed the parties to file their responses and will now hear the matter when the court reopens after the summer break.
Meanwhile, a petition in the Bombay High Court accused Eknath Shinde and the 16 other Shiv Sena MLAs of "neglecting" their official duties and sought directions for them to resume office.
Also Read: J&K, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh: States Where Govts Were Toppled In Recent Years
Dy Speaker cannot disqualify MLAs when his appointment is in doubt: Shiv Sena Rebels
Shiv Sena rebel leader Eknath Shinde told the Supreme Court that the Maharashtra Assembly Deputy Speaker Narhari Zirwal could not disqualify MLAs while there was a no-confidence motion pending against him.
"The most important overarching issue is that the speaker or deputy speaker cannot continue till if his continuance is in doubt…" Kaul told the bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardhiwala. "The second issue is the manner in which he (Zirwal) is proceeding; in undue haste, without following the principles of natural justice," Kaul added.
While hearing arguments, Justice Kant observed that the issue for consideration was limited.
Whether the deputy speaker has the right to hear the disqualification petition under Tenth Schedule when there is a notice seeking his removal under Article 179 of the Constitution?
To this, Kaul replied in the negative relying on the Supreme Court's 2016 five-judge constitutional bench judgment in Nabam Rabia case to buttress his point. The Nabam Rabia case refers to the top court ruling where it said that a speaker could not disqualify MLAs when a motion seeking his removal was pending before the house.
Also Read: What Is The Anti-Defection Law And How Is It Applicable In Maharashtra?
Courts cannot interfere till the Speaker takes a decision: Shiv Sena Chief Ajay Choudhari
Newly inducted Shiv Sena Chief Ajay Choudhari told the Supreme Court that a 1992 constitution bench judgment barred the courts from interfering until after the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker took a decision.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the Supreme Court the 1992 Kihoto Hollohan judgment clearly stated that "judicial review cannot be available at a stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speaker/Chairman."
SC has interdicted in only one case so far, Singhvi said.
"That issue has been decided only in Nabam Rabia and not before that," Singhvi responded. The exception is, if the speaker passes an interlocutory disqualification order, like in interim, then that will be considered the final order and then the court can intervene, Singhvi said. Another instance is when the court passes orders that aid the process..., he added.
For instance, the Manipur High Court had asked the Speaker to decide the issue (on disqualification) within three months after it was kept pending for three years. An objection was raised to that as well. But the court said it is only aiding in the procedure, Singhvi told the bench.
"You have been called to clarify why the Nabam Rabia should not be made applicable. Kihoto case is clear, no difficulty about it...," Justice Pardiwala said.
Also Read: Evils of Political Defection Matter of National Concern: Plea in SC
Genuineness of notice seeking removal needs to be verified: Dy Speaker Narhari Zirwal
Justice Surya Kant pointed out that 34 MLAs had issued a notice to Deputy Speaker Narhari Zirwal seeking his removal.
"And the Deputy has written that till the genuineness and authenticity of the contents cannot be verified, the same cannot be considered," replied Senior Counsel Rajeev Dhavan appearing for Zirwal.
"How will you check the genuineness," Justice Kant countered, to which Dhavan said the issue was serious as "this notice has not been sent to the registered email id and it was not from proper (official) email ids."
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for Maharashtra state, said the Supreme Court did not need to interfere in this matter at this stage. This was a case of "leap frogging" to the Supreme Court while bypassing the high court, Kamat said while challenging the pleas before it.
"Whether the disqualification has to be before High Court or Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has conclusively decided...," Kamat contended.
Also Read: Video Of Shiv Sena-NCP Workers Clashing Not Related To MVA Political Crisis