Shiv Sena row | Supreme Court asks whether Maharashtra Speaker contradicted verdict

Subject: Polity

Section: Elections

Context:

The Supreme Court of India questioned Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar’s decision to recognize Chief Minister Eknath Shinde’s faction as the “real” Shiv Sena, based on ‘legislative majority.’

Details:

Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, leading a three-judge Bench, raised concerns that this criterion seemed to contradict a previous ruling by the Constitution Bench.
The Bench had previously emphasized that the Speaker’s decision on party disputes should not solely rely on the legislative majority but should also consider the structure of leadership outside the Legislative Assembly, indicating the support from the party’s political wing, not just its legislative members.
- A majority faction of the legislature party cannot be construed as a political party for the purposes of the Tenth Schedule.
This query came up in the context of resolving disqualification petitions against Mr Shinde by the rival Uddhav Thackeray faction under the anti-defection law.

2018 constitution:

In the ongoing legal tussle regarding the Shiv Sena party’s leadership, Senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, and Devadutt Kamat argued that Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar erred by not recognizing the 2018 Constitution of Shiv Sena, which named Mr Thackeray as president.
They highlighted that this constitution had been acknowledged by both the High Court and the Supreme Court previously, but the Speaker disregarded it because it wasn’t filed with the Election Commission of India, opting instead for a 1999 version of the constitution that had not been previously contested.
Opposing this, Mr Salve, representing the other side, alleged that the documents presented by the Thackeray camp were fabricated and mentioned an ongoing similar case in the Bombay High Court, arguing against simultaneous petitions in multiple courts over the same matter.
Despite this, the Supreme Court has decided to continue hearing the case, scheduling further arguments for the week of April 8 and requesting the records of the disqualification proceedings from the Maharashtra Speaker’s office.

Source: TH