The Supreme Court in the case Sunil Prabhu v. Eknath Shinde observed wherein the petition was filed by a member of Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) wherein it challenged the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker’s refusal to disqualify the MLAs belonging to Eknath Shinde group.
The counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioner mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud for an urgent hearing.
The Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal stated that the matter requires a hearing and requested that it be listed on a non-miscellaneous day.
The bench of CJI agreed to post on March 7.
On the other hand, the counsel, Senior Advocate Harish Salve represented the Eknath Shinde group.
The bench while deferring the hearing, said that the question of maintainability of the petition would be considered first.
In the earlier hearing, the counsel, Senior Advocate Mr Salve representing the Eknath Shinde group pointed out that the Shinde group has approached the Bombay High Court challenging that part of the Speaker’s order which refused to disqualify Uddhav Sena members, questioned the maintainability of the petition before the Supreme Court.
When the bench of CJI asked why the petitioner couldn’t approach the High Court, Sibal said that the Speaker’s decision was in violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court and that the matter was best settled at the level of the Apex Court.
Therefore, the said matter is filed before the Court by a Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) member, Sunil Prabhu, wherein it challenged the order passed by the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, Rahul Narwekar on January 10.
In the present case, the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 questions the Speaker’s decision to dismiss the disqualification petitions filed by the Uddhav Thackeray group against the Eknath Shinde group. Therefore, the crux of the matter lies in the Speaker’s determination that the Shinde group constitutes the ‘real’ Shiv Sena, backed by a legislative majority when the factions emerged in June 2022. Thus, the Speaker also affirmed the legitimacy of the whip appointed by Shinde, emphasizing no violation by Shinde group MLAs.
Before the Court, Uddhav Sena contends that the ruling overlooks the Supreme Court’s precedent in the case Subhash Desai v. Governor of Maharashtra, wherein it argued against the conflation of ‘legislature party’ with the ‘political party.
