As the Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the Speaker to take a final call on the disqualification of 16 MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction “within reasonable time", Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narwekar, who had before the verdict upheld the right of the Speaker to adjudicate, told CNN-News18 that the SC has spoken “rightly".
In June last year, Shinde and 39 MLAs rebelled against the Sena leadership resulting in the party’s split. In the absence of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker Narhari Zirwal had issued disqualification notices to 16 Shiv Sena MLAs, including Eknath Shinde, who were accused of anti-party activities. The disqualification petition was filed by Sunil Prabhu, the Shiv Sena party whip appointed by Uddhav Thackeray, on June 23, 2022, after the MLAs revolted against him and went to Guwahati. Thackeray resigned as the CM ahead of the trust vote, causing the collapse of the Maha Vikas Aghadi government (which also comprises the National Congress Party (NCP) and Congress). Shinde later tied-up with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to form the government in Maharashtra. On June 30, 2022, Shinde was sworn in as the CM along with BJP’s Devendra Fadnavis as his deputy.
The Supreme Court observed that Thackeray’s resignation was a mistake. The bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud added that had Thackeray not resigned, the court would have restored status quo. “Status quo cannot be restored since Thackeray resigned," the bench added. While giving the verdict, the SC bench said the Governor was not justified to call the MVA government for a floor test in the Assembly. “The Governor’s actions were not according to the rule of law," the CJI said.
Edited excerpts from the interview:
Talking to NW18 before the big SC verdict, you had said that only the Speaker can decide on the disqualification of MLAs. Now, the top court, too, has ordered you to take a final call on the disqualification of 16 MLAs of the Shinde camp within reasonable time. When can we expect a decision because the current House is nearing its fourth year?
Like I have said earlier, the SC has rightly exercised the powers and the duties of the Speaker of the legislative assembly to adjudicate on issues pertaining to disqualification in accordance with Schedule 10 of the Constitution of India. This is the Constitutional discipline that needs to be followed. The three wings of our Constitution, legislature, judiciary and executive, are equal and neither is superior to the other. They are required to act within the scope of jurisdiction of the work which has been mandated by the Constitution. The authority to adjudicate the disqualification petition lies solely with the Speaker of the legislative assembly and the courts have rightly recognised this. I welcome this judgment.
With regards to the time that will be taken to decide on these petitions, the court has also asked the Speaker to adjudicate as to who really represents the Shiv Sena political party and have laid down guidelines. We have to first look at who really represents the political party. Based on that, we will decide who should and will be the whip of the party in the state assembly and we will then decide on the merits of each petition, whether the claims and allegations made in those petitions are maintainable or not. All the rules of CPC will be applicable to the petition and therefore, under the principle of natural justice, we would have to give every petitioner and the respondent an opportunity to put forth their case. There would be checking of evidence, cross-examination and examination, so the entire process needs to be followed. Only then will we come to a conclusion on this matter.
…Under the principle of natural justice, we would have to give every petitioner and the respondent an opportunity to put forth their case. There would be checking of evidence, cross-examination and examination, so the entire process needs to be followed. Only then will we come to a conclusion on this matter.
As you aren’t giving me a timeline here, the SC judgment has also said that both the Governor and Speaker erred in taking a decision. The SC has gone on to say that the Speaker’s decision to appoint Bharat Gogawale as the chief whip of the Sena was illegal and that the issue needed to be examined by a larger bench. Clearly, your office’s action was declared illegal. How will you defend your office?
The whip isn’t appointed by the Speaker’s office, it is only recognised by the Speaker. And if you look at the provisions of Schedule 10, there is absolutely no clarity with regards to whether the whip should be appointed by the political party and, thus, in the scheme of things, a precedence has been followed in the Maharashtra state legislature, where a resolution is passed by the majority of the elected MLAs and accordingly a whip is recognised by the Speaker. It has been seen in this case as well. Now, the court has explicitly mentioned that the whip has to be appointed in accordance with the direction or desire of the political party.
…So we will be able to take a decision on that account now, but I don’t think there is any malice attributed to that decision. I think the court has only gone to extension in saying that the appointment, which recognises the will of the legislature party, is perhaps bad in law. But now that they have clarified this issue, I think it’s going to be easier for any presiding officer to take a decision.
There are certain paras in this judgment which have raised questions on your role. The court has noted that your office didn’t take into account the two factions of the Shiv Sena while deciding on the matter and I am quoting, “The Speaker didn’t attempt to identify which of the two persons Mr Prabhu or Mr Gogawale was the whip that has been authorised by the political party". Is there any scope for rectification here?
I totally believe that several SC judgments have dealt with the issue of a political party being distinct from a legislature party and in the present case, the legislature party had asked a resolution to appoint an individual as his whip. This was the precedent that has been followed in the state legislature for years now. So there was nothing out of line in this decision. As far as deciding who really leads a political party or perhaps is in control of a political party, I don’t know how much of that comes into the arena of jurisdiction of the Speaker of the assembly. That’s a wider scope. A political party isn’t just affiliated to the state assembly, but also to the parliamentary party, zilla parishad parties and local self-government bodies. Now that the court has said that the Speaker should adjudicate on who really represents the political party, I am happy to do so. But the fact remains that the precedent was different so far.
The top court has questioned your officer’s decision to keep the disqualification petitions against Mr Shinde and other MLAs of his camp pending until the Election Commission’s decision came in its favour. Why did you choose to keep it pending?
At the outset, let me say, we have kept nothing pending. The process is on.
Number two, initially the court itself had passed a decision requesting the Speaker not to take a decision till a bench is constituted after the vacation. Therefore, perhaps, keeping the judiciary in utmost respect, we have a very vibrant and democratic judiciary set-up that calls upon every institution to respect and abide by the Constitutional orders of the judiciary, hence we did. Thereafter, we continued the process and it is ongoing. We will now initiate it further in accordance with the guidelines of the SC. So, there’s no stoppage to this.
Experts say the Thackeray government was legal, but immoral as it dumped its ideological ally and the government that stands today is illegal but moral perhaps. Do you think that this is a correct assessment?
As far as I am concerned, a government’s validity and majority is established on the floor of the house. So far, they have stood by a confidence motion in the house. They have got more than the majority numbers. How can I call this government immoral? I will be doing a disservice if I called them so. And I would be doing a disservice to the Constitution.
Comments
0 comment