Five-judge SC bench to hear Sena rebellion cases from tomorrow | India News

NEW DELHI:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday referred to a five-judge bench a host of constitutional questions arising from cross petitions filed after the rebellion in Shiv Sena, leading to the collapse of the Uddhav Thackeray-led Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government in Maharashtra and installation of the rebel MLA Eknath Shinde-led government with BJP’s support.
A bench of Chief CJI N V Ramana and Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli said the five-judge bench would commence hearing on Thursday and restrained the Election Commission from passing any order till Thursday on a petition by the Shinde faction claiming to be the “original Shiv Sena” to get the ‘bow and arrow’ symbol ahead of the Mumbai civic polls.
A CJI Ramana-led bench justified referring cross petitions filed by the two Shiv Sena factions to a five-judge bench on two counts – one, the important constitutional questions raised by the warring factions; and the second, possible reconsideration of SC’s 2016 judgment in the Nabam Rebia case, where it had ruled that a Speaker cannot decide disqualification petitions against MLAs if a petition for his removal is pending.
The CJI-led bench said, “This court is of opinion that the present batch of petitions raise important constitutional questions relating to interpretation of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution pertaining to disqualification, as well as the powers of the Speaker and the Governor and the power of judicial review thereof. At the outset, it may be necessary to highlight one particular question raised in these matters relating to the power of the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker to initiate disqualification proceedings, when proceedings for removal from the said office has been initiated against them.”
In the 2016 Nabam Rebia case, the SC had said, “We are, therefore, of the view that constitutional purpose and constitutional harmony would be maintained and preserved, if a Speaker refrains from adjudication of a petition for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, whilst his own position, as the Speaker, is under challenge. This would also allow the two provisions (Article 179(c) and the Tenth Schedule]to operate in their individual constitutional space, without encroaching on the other.”
The bench on Tuesday said, “We may, prima facie, observe that the proposition of law laid down by the Constitution bench in Nabam Rebia case, stands on contradictory reasoning, which requires gap filling to uphold the constitutional morality. As such, this question needs a reference to a Constitution bench for the requisite gap filling exercise to be conducted.”