BREAKING| Maharashtra Crisis- Supreme Court Extends Time Till July12 For Rebel Shiv Sena MLAs To Respond To Dy.Speaker's Disqualification Notice

The Supreme Court on Monday extended the time for Eknath Shinde and 15 other rebel MLAs in the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly, to file written response to the Deputy Speaker's disqualification notice till July 12. The deadline was otherwise 5.30 PM today."Meanwhile as an interim measure, the time granted by the Deputy Speaker of the Assembly to the petitioners or other similarly placed Members of the Legislative Assembly to submit their written submissions upto today by 5.30P.M., is extended till 12.07.2022.," the vacation bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala ordered.It further observed that the State shall make sure that the right granted to every citizen is protected. "Mr. Chitnis, learned counsel for the State of Maharashtra states that adequate steps have been already taken and the State Government shall further ensure that no harm is caused to the lives, liberty and properties of the 39 MLAs and their families", it recorded in the order.The Court was hearing the petition preferred by rebel Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde challenging the disqualification notices issued by the Deputy Speaker to rebel MLAs for proceedings under the tenth schedule of the Constitution over alleged defection.It was also considering another writ petition filed by Bharat Gogawale and 14 other Shiv Sena MLA's seeking to restrain the Deputy Speaker from taking any action in the disqualification petition until the resolution for removal of Deputy Speaker is decided.It has issued notice to the Secretary of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly and has granted time to the Respondents to file their counter affidavits, if any, within 5 days. The matter will be heard again on July 11.Senior Advocate Rajeev Dhavan appearing for the Deputy Speaker orally assured the Court that no decision on disqualification will be taken in the meantime. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul appearing for the petitioners argued that the Deputy Speaker cannot proceed with the disqualification proceedings when the resolution seeking his removal is pending. Senior Advocate AM Singhvi, appearing for the Shiv Sena legislative party leader Ajay Chaudhary and Sunil Prabhu, Chief Whip, on the other hand, argued that Courts cannot interfere when the proceedings are pending before the Speaker. He submitted that no action will lie before the Court till the Speaker decides the notices finally.Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appearing along with Singhvi raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition, stating that it is a case of "leapfrogging" to the Supreme Court bypassing the High Court.Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the Centre.Live updates here.COURTROOM EXCHANGEMaintainability under Article 32 Kaul submitted that the Deputy Speaker cannot proceed with the disqualification proceedings when the resolution seeking his removal is pending. At the outset, the Bench inquired from the Petitioners as to why did they not approach the High Court. To this, Kaul responded that existence of Article 226 is not a constitutional bar to invoke jurisdiction under Article 32 and that in several cases involving floor test, disqualification, etc. the Supreme Court has issued orders under Article 32. He referred to Ashish Shelar & Ors. v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr. to argue that in cases of extreme impropriety, the Supreme Court can interfere in exercise of its powers under Article 32. Kaul also alleged that the atmosphere in Bombay is not conducive for the Petitioners to approach the High Court, since "a minority of the legislative party is subverting the state machinery, attacking our houses, saying that our dead bodies will be returned." Singhvi argued that the petitioners have "leap frogged" to the Supreme Court, and have failed to give any reason as to why they should not be sent to the High Court. Can Speaker decide disqualification proceedings pending resolution for his removal? Kaul submitted that the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker cannot continue with the disqualification proceedings if his continuance is in doubt. At this juncture, Justice Kant asked the Petitioners why did they not raise the issue of Deputy Speaker's incompetency before the Deputy Speaker himself. Kaul responded that this was informed to the Deputy Speaker and he still proceeded with the notices. He relied on Nabam Rebia v. Dy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Assembly, where it was held that it would be constitutionally impermissible for a Speaker to adjudicate upon disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, while a notice of resolution for his own removal from the office of Speaker, is pending. "The office of Speaker, with which the Constitution vests the authority to deal with disqualification petitions against MLAs, must surely be a Speaker who enjoys confidence of the Assembly," the Supreme Court had said therein. It was further of the view that, ...

BREAKING| Maharashtra Crisis- Supreme Court Extends Time Till July12 For Rebel Shiv Sena MLAs To Respond To Dy.Speaker's Disqualification Notice

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

BREAKING| Maharashtra Crisis- Supreme Court Extends Time Till July12 For Rebel Shiv Sena MLAs To Respond To Dy.Speaker's Disqualification Notice

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers