Lagatar24 Desk
New Delhi, Feb 17: A five-judge Constitution Bench panel on Friday made the observation that it will determine whether to send the cases involving the Shiv Sena dispute to a larger bench after hearing the merits of the case.
The Uddhav Thackeray side is requesting a reference to reconsider whether the Constitution Bench’s ruling in Nabam Rebia vs Deputy Speaker was valid (2016).
According to the judgements of Justice Deepak Misra and then-Chairman of the Supreme Court, JS Khehar, in the case of Nabam Rebia, the Speaker is unable to decide disqualification petitions while a notice of removal is still pending. In contrast, Judge MB Lokur noted in his ruling that this issue did not come up in the case.
The Constitution Court stated today that it is necessary to determine from the facts if Nabam Rebia’s principles apply to the current case. As a result, the Court agreed to hear both the merits of the case and the reference issue. The case will be heard starting on Tuesday, according to the bench.
“The issue of whether a reference to a bench of 7-judges is to be made cannot be considered in the abstract, isolated and divorced from the facts of the case. Whether the principle formulated in Nabam Rebia has an impact on the factual position in the present case needs deliberation. In the above backdrop, the issue of whether the reference of the decision in Nabam Rebia to a larger bench is warranted would be determined together with the merits of the case. Consequently, the batch of cases is set down for hearing on merits on Tuesday, February 21”, CJI Chandrachud read out the operative part of the order.
A group of petitions pertaining to political developments in Maharashtra, which led to a change of State Government in July 2022 as a result of a rift within the Shiv Sena party between the groups of Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde, were being heard by a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. During three days, the bench, which also included Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli, and PS Narasimha, heard arguments regarding the necessity of a reference.
Nabam Rebia had held that a Speaker will be disabled from deciding disqualification petitions under the anti-defection law (10th schedule of the Constitution) if a notice under Article 179(c) of the Constitution for removal is pending. The correctness of this view has been called into question in the present matter by the lawyers representing Uddhav group. The stand of the Shinde side is that no reference is required.
The attorneys defending Uddhav Group have questioned whether this viewpoint is accurate in the current case. The Shinde side maintains that no references are necessary.
The Shinde group claimed that because a notice requesting his removal is still pending, the Deputy Speaker cannot act in accordance with the tenth schedule against the rebellious MLAs. They did this by citing the Nabam Rebia principle.
