Shiv Sena Case : Brief Recap Of Arguments In Supreme Court

The long-awaited judgment pertaining to the rift within the Shiv Sena party between Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde groups, which led to the change in the government in Maharashtra in July 2022 is expected to be announced soon. The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha started hearing the matter on February 14 2023 and the judgement was finally reserved on March 16 2023. With Justice MR Shah set to retire on May 15 2023, it is likely that the judgement would come out soon. The Shivsena dispute has garnered significant attention and generated intense speculation within the public domain. The outcome of the case will undoubtedly have a significant impact, not only on the Shivsena party but also on the broader political scenario. This article provides with a brief recap to all issues raised and highlights the primary arguments contended by the parties in the matter. What is the matter about? The batch includes the petitions filed by members from the groups of Shinde and Thackeray over several issues. The first petition was filed by Eknath Shinde in June 2022 challenging the notices issued by the then Deputy Speaker against the rebels under the tenth schedule of the Constitution over alleged defection. Later, the Thackeray group filed petitions in the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Governor to call for a trust vote, the swearing-in of Eknath Shinde as the Chief Minister of the Government with the backing of BJP, the election of new Speaker etc. In August 2022, a 3-judge bench led by the then Chief Justice of India NV Ramana referred the petitions to a Constitution Bench, raising the following issues :A. Whether the notice of removal of the speaker restricts him from continuing the disqualification proceedings under Schedule X of the Indian Constitution as held by the Court in Nabam Rebia;B. Whether a petition under Article 226 and Article 32 lies inviting a decision on a disqualification proceeding by the High Courts or the Supreme Court as the case may be;C. Can a court hold that a member is deemed to be disqualified by virtue of his/her actions absent a decision by the Speaker?D. What is the status of proceedings in the House during the pendency of disqualification petitions against the members?E. If the decision of speaker that a member was incurred disqualification under the Tenth Schedule relates back to the date of the complaint, then what is the status of proceedings that took place during the pendency of the disqualification petition?F. What is the impact of the removal of Para 3 of the Tenth Schedule? (which omitted "split" in a party as a defence against disqualification proceedings)G. What is the scope of the power of the Speaker to determine the whip and leader of house of the legislative party?H. What is the interplay with respect to the provisions of the Tenth Schedule?I. Are intra-party questions amenable to judicial review? What is the scope of the same?J. Power of the governor to invite a person to form the government and whether the same is amenable to judicial review?H. What is the scope of the powers of Election Commission of India with respect to deter an ex parte split within a party.Hearings before the Constitution Bench A preliminary issue was raised by the Uddhav side that the matter should be referred to a larger bench to reconsider the dictum laid down in the Nabam Rebia (2016) judgment that Speakers cannot issue disqualification notices when a notice seeking their removal are pending. The bench heard arguments on the preliminary issue for three days. On February 17, the bench decided to consider this preliminary issue along with the merits of the matter. On the same day, the Election Commission of India passed the order giving recognition to Eknath Shinde as the official Shiv Sena.From February 21, the bench started hearing the matter on merits. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Devadatt Kamat argued on behalf of the Uddhav side. Senior Advocates Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Harish Salve, Mahesh Jethmalani and Maninder Singh argued for the Shinde side. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of the Maharashtra Governor.Arguments raised by the Uddhav Thackeray faction1. Restoration of status quo ante: The Thackeray faction argued that the new government had been elected because of the orders passed by the court on June 27 and then June 29. As per the order of June 27, the Apex Court granted interim relief to Eknath Shinde by extending the time to file responses to the disqualification notices. Later, on June 29, the court gave the go-ahead to a floor test called by the governor. Contending that an initial wrong in a judicial order would result in all subsequent consequences to fall through, the Thackeray faction requested for the restoration of status quo ante as on June 27, 2022 so that parties were...

Shiv Sena Case : Brief Recap Of Arguments In Supreme Court

Padmakshi Sharma

Tags