Uddhav Thackeray vs Eknath Shinde : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing In Shiv Sena case [Feb 23]

Singhvi: The position in orders inevitably lead to the change of the government.

Singhvi: Your lordships find genuine problem in election process- your lordships say come back after elections. Because you don't interdict an autonomous self contained scheme of the court.

Singhvi: A perceived error of the speaker's conduct will not justify interlocutory application.

Singhvi: your lordships says that noone can come and plead vested rights etc- because your lordships takes this into account in advance!

Singhvi: Your lordships speak in rem and your lordships give a fair warning that everything that happens after is subject to, and at your risk and cost.

Singhvi: The second aspect- the language of the order. These are terms of art. These common law terms of art have to be given effect to.

Singhvi: Let us not see this case in an abstract. Let's see it in reality- let's smell the constitutional coffee. Absent these two orders, your lordships could not have a change of government.

Singhvi: I am saying one thing is clear- formation of a government is clearly the direct and inevitable result of the combination of these two orders.

Singhvi: The second was a positive injunction, or an order, of 29th July, allowing the trust vote to be held.

Singhvi: In substance, it was a judicial injunctive interim relief qua a speaker's future action under the tenth schedule. It's a negative injunction.