Uddhav Thackeray vs Eknath Shinde : Live Updates From Supreme Court In Shiv Sena Case [March 14]

Jethmalani takes the court through Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil.

"An exception was carved out in that case, but the principle was reaffirmed."

Jethmalani: ...It ill behoves a legislative assembly to say rules framed by it under a constitutional provision can be blindly ignored by them...

(Laughs) They are legislators, if they set that precedent, God save the rest of the country.

Jethmalani: The disqualification rules are mandatory and a breach of them by the speaker/ deputy speaker is amenable to judicial review...(Reads out said rules) 

CJ of Kenya Martha Koome rises, is escorted by the judges on the bench.

Jethmalani resumes after they return: Disqualification notice was only sent to 16 members, which reveals mala fide on his part. 16 would allow their govt to survive.

Jethmalani: Yes, my point is that speaker has no jurisdiction & the only thing speaker could have done is defer it to election commission...Nabam Rebia is good law and he ought to have obeyed it. Your deemed disqualification does not apply.

CJI: ...This point also Kaul has made that there was no split or merger in political party. The contention was that a rival faction represented the real Shiv Sena & this was found to be true by election commission.

Jethmalani: ...Speaker can only go into legislative matters, & not organisational aspects. Besides, all MLAs are members of Pratinidhi Sabha...Even if speaker were to adopt twin test...

CJI: This point also Kaul has made...

Jethmalani: Next point, fact of 34 MLAs being part of real Shiv Sena was disclosed to deputy speaker on June 21...Deputy speaker ought to have resisted with disqualification petitions...dispute within jurisdiction of election commission.

CJI: By going into merits...If you are inviting us into going into whether there was a per se disqualification, he may be right on that. Why go into merits? Internally inconsistent for you to argue this.

Jethmalani: 2(1)(c) dealt with acts outside...legislative intent was to take this out.

CJI: Sibal argued that this was per se disqualification. You are now dealing with this on merits, when all along you have argued speaker has jurisdiction.