NEW DELHI: The two-year-old political dispute over control of Shiv Sena between factions led by Uddhav Thackeray and Maharashtra CM Eknath Shinde reached Supreme Court on Monday as Sena (UBT) faction led by the former sought quashing of assembly speaker’s January 10 orders lock, stock and barrel.
Sena (UBT) accused speaker Rahul Narwekar of acting unconstitutionally and in violation of apex court’s May 11, 2023, judgment in Subhash Desai case laying broad parameters of anti-defection law and to decide disqualification pleas.
In its plea, Sena (UBT) sought stay of Narwekar’s orders recognising Shinde faction as the real Sena and dismissing pleas for disqualification of 39 ‘rebel’ MLAs led by Shinde, though “there was more than sufficient evidence” about them defying whips to split the party in June 2022.
Faulting the speaker’s decision to consider ‘legislative majority’ of the Shinde group as the yardstick for determining which faction was the real party, the Thackeray group representing by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, said it amounted to the speaker taking a constitutionally impermissible route to approve a split as a ground for defection despite the clause to that effect omitted by the Constitution (91st Amendment) Act, 2003.
“The speaker arrived at erroneous conclusions as he undertook a complete colourable exercise of power based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations,” the Thackeray group said.
It said the SC in Subhash Desai case had ruled that “speakers must not base their decision as to which group constitutes the political party on a blind appreciation of which group possesses a majority in the legislative assembly. This is not a game of numbers, but of something more”.
Despite the clear direction from the SC, the speaker based his decision on the legislative majority of the Shinde faction to rule that Sena (Shinde) was the real Shiv Sena, the petitioner faction said.
It said the SC has categorically laid down the fundamental difference between ‘legislature party’ and ‘political party’.
The speaker erroneously conflated the concept of legislature party and political party by accepting legislative majority being the barometer for deciphering “who the political party is”, the party added.
Sena (UBT) said though the ‘leadership structure’ of the Shiv Sena was established in favour of Thackeray, the speaker indulged in a roving inquiry and considered extraneous material to arrive at a “perverse reasoning” that the ‘leadership structure of Shiv Sena’ could not be relied upon in determining which faction was the real Sena.
Challenging the dismissal of disqualification petitions by Sunil Prabhu against 39 Shinde-faction MLAs, Sena (UBT) said defiance of two whips issued by Prabhu by the 39 MLAs could not have been left unpunished based on a technicality regarding drafting of the whip.
“This exercise of determining whether the undisputed leadership structure was in accordance with the party constitution has been undertaken (by the speaker) with the mala fide objective of not allowing the Shiv Sena political leadership to enforce the discipline of the Tenth Schedule on its errant legislators,” Sena (UBT) said.
Sena (UBT) accused speaker Rahul Narwekar of acting unconstitutionally and in violation of apex court’s May 11, 2023, judgment in Subhash Desai case laying broad parameters of anti-defection law and to decide disqualification pleas.
In its plea, Sena (UBT) sought stay of Narwekar’s orders recognising Shinde faction as the real Sena and dismissing pleas for disqualification of 39 ‘rebel’ MLAs led by Shinde, though “there was more than sufficient evidence” about them defying whips to split the party in June 2022.
Faulting the speaker’s decision to consider ‘legislative majority’ of the Shinde group as the yardstick for determining which faction was the real party, the Thackeray group representing by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat, said it amounted to the speaker taking a constitutionally impermissible route to approve a split as a ground for defection despite the clause to that effect omitted by the Constitution (91st Amendment) Act, 2003.
“The speaker arrived at erroneous conclusions as he undertook a complete colourable exercise of power based on extraneous and irrelevant considerations,” the Thackeray group said.
It said the SC in Subhash Desai case had ruled that “speakers must not base their decision as to which group constitutes the political party on a blind appreciation of which group possesses a majority in the legislative assembly. This is not a game of numbers, but of something more”.
Despite the clear direction from the SC, the speaker based his decision on the legislative majority of the Shinde faction to rule that Sena (Shinde) was the real Shiv Sena, the petitioner faction said.
It said the SC has categorically laid down the fundamental difference between ‘legislature party’ and ‘political party’.
The speaker erroneously conflated the concept of legislature party and political party by accepting legislative majority being the barometer for deciphering “who the political party is”, the party added.
Sena (UBT) said though the ‘leadership structure’ of the Shiv Sena was established in favour of Thackeray, the speaker indulged in a roving inquiry and considered extraneous material to arrive at a “perverse reasoning” that the ‘leadership structure of Shiv Sena’ could not be relied upon in determining which faction was the real Sena.
Challenging the dismissal of disqualification petitions by Sunil Prabhu against 39 Shinde-faction MLAs, Sena (UBT) said defiance of two whips issued by Prabhu by the 39 MLAs could not have been left unpunished based on a technicality regarding drafting of the whip.
“This exercise of determining whether the undisputed leadership structure was in accordance with the party constitution has been undertaken (by the speaker) with the mala fide objective of not allowing the Shiv Sena political leadership to enforce the discipline of the Tenth Schedule on its errant legislators,” Sena (UBT) said.
