From Our Bureau
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday skipped any quick solution of the political crisis in Maharashtra while issuing notice to state deputy speaker Narhari Zirwal on the Shiv Sena rebels’ pleas and fixing the next hearing on July 11 on the opening day after the summer vacation.
The vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala told the deputy speaker, who was to decide cases of rebels at 5.30 PM on Monday that a no-confidence motion against him is already pending and so “haste can lead to undesirable consequences.”
Zirwal belongs to the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) of Sharad Pawar and he enjoys the powers of the Assembly Speaker since after Congress leader Nana Patole, who was elected the Speaker after the Maha Aghadi Party came to power, resigned on being appointed the state Congress President in 2020 and the Congress let the Speaker’s post vacant. Zirwal is designated as the Speaker since February 4, 2021.
In an interim direction, the Court allowed Eknath Shinde and other rebels to file their reply “without prejudice to their rights in the writ petition” to the disqualification notices of the deputy speaker only by 5.30 PM on July 12, that is only a day after the court hearing. The deputy speaker had given them time to file a reply by 5.30 PM on Monday.
Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the deputy speaker, assured the court that no action will be taken on the disqualification of the rebel MLAs till the next date of hearing in the matter.
All parties have been asked to file counter affidavits within five days and the Shinde camp gets three days to respond to the counter affidavits.
The top court was hearing an urgent petition filed by the rebels’ leader Eknathrao Sambhaji Shinde against the deputy speaker to act on the Shiv Sena petition to him to disqualify him and 15 rebels under the anti-defection law. Another petition before the court was to challenge the deputy speaker’s decision to recognise Ajay Choudhary as leader of the Shiv Sena as Sena Party group leader in place of Shinde.
Notices were also issued to Sena chief whip Sunil Prabhu and legislature party leader Anil Chaudhary on the petitions by Shinde and other 15 rebels challenging notices to disqualify them. It also asked the deputy speaker to file a detailed affidavit on the motion of no-confidence filed against him by the Shinde-led rebel Shiv Sena camp.
The Supreme Court issued the directive after the deputy speaker questioned the authenticity of his removal motion by the rebel camp. The Shinde faction had on June 22 given a notice for his removal under Article 179 of the Constitution and Rule 11 of the Mahrashtra Assembly rules.
The court sought all the records from the office of the deputy speaker, after his senior counsel Rajeev Dhavan told the Bench that the removal motion authenticity is not accepted since it was sent through an email.
On being asked why the rebels had not approached the Bombay High Court with their pleas, Shinde’s senior counsel Neeraj Kishan Kaul told the court about the risk to their life if they even land in Mumbai. “A minority of the legislative party is subverting the state machinery, attacking our houses. They’re saying that our dead bodies will return from Assam. The atmosphere is not conducive for us to exercise our rights in Mumbai,” he said.
The Court recorded a statement of the standing counsel of the Maharashtra government on security to 39 rebel MLAs that adequate steps have already been taken and the state government will further ensure that no harm is caused to the life, liberty, or property of the MLAs.
Kaul asserted that the deputy speaker is not competent to proceed with the disqualification of the MLAs when a plea for his own removal is pending. He said 39 MLAs are together against the minority Sena group.
Kaul called for the court record Dhavan’s statement, but Abhishek Manu Singhvi objects, saying there is no need.
Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, appearing for Thackeray-led Shiv Sena, interjectsed Kaul’s repeated demands and says, “May I please point out, there is no order which has stayed the proceedings. No such order can be passed. Just have a look at Para 6 of the Tenth Schedule on disqualifications.”
He also objected to the petition as not maintainable. “The Supreme Court, in the Karnataka MLA case had disapproved of the petitioners in the case leapfrogging to the apex court and bypassing the High Court. Also, there is no question of calling a special session just because of this bogey of no-confidence. The legislative rules do not allow it. To express no-confidence in Chief Minister, no reason is to be given. But as far as Speaker is concerned, under Article 179, removal reasons have to be given. Members can’t merely say they have no confidence. It is only on a charge,” asserted Kamat.
He pleaded that the top court cannot interfere in the matters pending for decisions before the Speaker, whose role the deputy speaker is playing at the moment since the Speaker’s post is vacant.
