SC Ruling on Sena vs Sena

SC Ruling on Sena vs Sena

Subject : Polity

Section: Parliament

Concept :

• The Supreme Court has passed a unanimous judgement on the various issues related to the split in Shiv Sena in June 2022.
• While passing the judgement, the apex court made strong observations about the role of the then Governor of Maharashtra and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly.
• The court, however, refrained from interfering with the proceedings related to disqualifying 16 MLAs, including Chief Minister Eknath Shinde.

Matter referred to five-judge Constitution Bench

• In August 2022, a three-judge SC bench led by then CJI N V Ramana referred the questions arising out of petitions filed by rival camps to a five-judge Constitution Bench.
• It said that the Nabam Rebia verdict requires gap filling to uphold constitutional morality.

What is 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment?

• In Nabam Rebia case (2016), the SC held that a speaker will be disabled from deciding disqualification petitions under the anti-defection law (10th schedule of the constitution) if a notice for their removal is pending.
• In other words, this judgement stopped a Speaker facing removal notice from deciding disqualification pleas against members of legislatures under anti-defection law.

What SC said in ruling on Sena tussle?

• Disqualification of MLAs
• The Supreme Court said it cannot interfere in the proceedings and the Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly must decide on the issue of the disqualification of the 16 MLAs.
• On restoring Uddhav Thackeray govt
• The SC held since Uddhav Thackeray resigned as the chief minister and did not face the floor test, his government cannot be reinstated.
• It said, had Thackeray refrained from resigning from his post, the court could have restored his government.
• The court also held that the decision of the governor in calling Shinde to administer him an oath as CM was justified.
• On governor’s role in calling floor test
• The court held that by calling the floor test, the then Maharashtra governor did not act in accordance with the law as he had no objective material to doubt the confidence of the Thackeray government in the House.
• The court said the Governor had acted upon an inference that a section of the Shiv Sena wished to withdraw their support to the government.
• However, the communication by some of the MLAs only expressed discontent about the Maha Vikas Aghadi alliance.
• It said that the power of the Governor to act without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers is of an extraordinary nature, and must be exercised with circumspection within the limits of law.
• It also said that the Governor is not empowered to enter the political arena and play a role in inter or intra party disputes.
• Appointment of whip from Shinde group illegal
• It said the appointment of the chief whip by a political party is crucial to the Tenth Schedule and the system will crumble if it is not complied with.
• The Tenth Schedule of the Indian Constitution is also known as the Anti-Defection Law. It was added to the Constitution in 1985 through the 52nd Amendment Act.
• It also held that the speaker should have conducted an independent inquiry to identify two whips issued by (the two factions) the political party.
• Speaker and EC can adjudicate issues concurrently
• The court said it could not accept the contention that the EC was barred from deciding on the party symbol dispute until the Speaker decided the disqualification pleas before him.
• The court said this would amount to indefinitely staying proceedings before the ECI.
• This is because the Speaker’s decision would attain finality only after the appeals against his decision were disposed of.
• Referral of issues in Nabam Rebia judgement to larger bench
• The five-judge bench referred certain issues related to its 2016 judgment in the Nabam Rebia case to a larger bench.
• One of the issues is whether a notice for removal of a Speaker would restrict the powers of the Speaker to issue disqualification notices to MLAs.