The Supreme Court in the case observed wherein the Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray has approached the court challenging the decision of the Maharashtra Speaker to recognize Eknath Shinde group as the real Shiv Sena and refusing to disqualify the members of Shinde faction for defection as per the tenth schedule of the Constitution.
The Speaker Rahul Narwekar on January 10 pronounced the verdict rejecting the petition moved by Uddhav faction seeking to disqualify Eknath Shinde and his supporting MLAs. The Speaker also dismissed the disqualification petitions filed by Shinde faction against Uddhav group.
Therefore, Shinde Sena has approached the Bombay High Court challenging the decision of Speaker’s to disqualify members of the Uddhav group.
It has been stated by Speaker that Shinde faction had an overwhelming majority of 37 of 55 MLAs when rival factions emerged and that Shinde was validly appointed as leader of the party. Thus, he said the will of “Party pakshapramukh” at the time, Uddhav, thus, it cannot be said to be the will of the political party and this is to enable intra-party dissent.
Adding to it, he stated that Uddhav Thackeray had no power to remove Eknath Shinde as the party leader.
The court refused to disqualify the 40 members from the Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena faction on the petitions filed by the Uddhav Thackeray faction, Speaker reasoned that Sunil Prabhu had ceased to be the authorised whip of the party on June 21 and had no authority to call a meeting of the party and the Shinde-faction MLAs cannot be disqualified for having violated the said whip.
Further, it has been stated by the speaker that Shinde faction not attending the meeting can at the most be termed as an act of dissent within the party and it would be protected by freedom of speech and expression.
The Supreme Court in the case had initially set a deadline of 31.12.2023, for the Speaker to decide the petitions under the tenth schedule of the Constitution.
Later, the court extended the deadline to January 10, 2024.
The Supreme Court in the case expressed strong dissatisfaction at the Speaker’s delay in the adjudication, while observing ‘the dignity of this court’s judgement should be maintained.’
