Uddhav Thackeray vs Eknath Shinde : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing | Shiv Sena Case [March 2]

Salve: Please see the analysis. The facts were so stark. What really your lordships were doing is saying that the speaker had no business at doing this.

CJI DY Chandrachud: It's a caution to the speaker. And ultimately, it's for the speaker to take a call on whether there is a frontal assault on his continuance- whether he would like to go ahead with the hearing of the disqualification petition.

CJI DY Chandrachud: You don't read Nabam Rebia as an absolute principle that the speaker is disabled from exercising his jurisdiction when there is a motion for his removal pending.

Salve: It is about the manner of exercise and not the absence of power.

Salve: Yes, the rule should be amended, speaker should decide fast, judicial review should be available but the legal consequence of the pendency of proceedings- this is the principle of ex post facto which will apply.

Salve: Till the date of disqualification, the person is entitled to participate and Article 189(2) makes it clear that his functioning in the house in the interregnum, doesn't vitiate any actions of the house.

Salve: I read the Nabam Rebia not as laying down an absence of power but as laying down a code of conduct.

Salve: Please see the consequence which will be violating Constitution which says that - no act of the house shall be declared invalid merely because a member who was not entitled participate. Here the member was entitled.

Salve: Today, your lordships were told how terrible it is to let those who have disqualification proceedings to vote. It is not everytime that there is corruption when there is disqualification. 

Salve: The principle of the two is quite identical. We are concerned with 190 because we're talking of State. [Reads Article 190(3)(a)]