scorecardresearch
Thursday, March 28, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeJudiciaryReference of Nabam Rebia ruling to 7-judge bench can't be decided in...

Reference of Nabam Rebia ruling to 7-judge bench can’t be decided in ‘abstract manner’, says SC

The 2016 ruling says a speaker can't initiate disqualification proceedings against MLAs if a notice for her/his removal is pending. It came to rescue of MLAs led by Eknath Shinde last year.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday said that reference of the 2016 Nabam Rebia judgment to a larger bench of seven judges cannot be decided in an “abstract manner,” “isolated” and “divorced” from the facts of a singular case.

While deciding the Nabam Rebia case in Arunachal Pradesh, a five-judge constitution bench had held that the speaker of an assembly cannot initiate disqualification proceedings against Members of Legislative Assembly (MLA) when a resolution seeking his removal from the post is pending.

This judgment came to the rescue of rebel MLAs led by Eknath Shinde, now the chief minister of Maharashtra, last year. The Uddhav Thackeray-led faction had sought their disqualification even though a notice of the Shinde group for the removal of Maharashtra Assembly Deputy Speaker Narhari Sitaram Zirwal was pending before the House.

A five-judge bench, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Friday said it would determine the question of a reference while examining the merits of the cross-petitions filed by two rival groups of the Shiv Sena (the Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde factions).

The Uddhav Thackeray faction had sought a re-examination of this principle laid down in the Nabam Rebia judgment on the ground that the Constitution does not envisage any “fetter” on the functional autonomy of the speaker from deciding disqualification petitions, even at a time when a notice for motion for his removal is pending. It was argued that the said judgment left the anti-defection law redundant.

On the other hand, the Eknath Shinde-led group had urged the bench not to review the judgment because in the absence of a restraint on him, a speaker could change the composition in the assembly by disqualifying members to allow a leader without majority to continue as the chief minister of the state.


Also read: SC agrees to hear same-sex couple’s plea challenging Kerala HC-ordered counselling


Genesis of the case

The genesis of the case in the Supreme Court arises from the political crisis that led to a change of power in Maharashtra, after the Shinde faction joined hands with the BJP to topple Uddhav Thackeray’s government. With the support of the BJP, Shinde had replaced Thackeray as the state’s chief minister.

While the political drama unfolded, the Shinde faction was served with disqualification notice by Deputy Speaker Zirwal for acting against the party whip while voting during the member of legislative council elections. This notice was questioned by Shinde and others, who said the speaker could not have proceeded on the disqualification petitions, because there was a removal notice pending against him.

On 27 June, 2022, the court granted interim relief to the Shinde-led group by extending them time to file their responses to the disqualification notice. With this order, the Shinde faction could file their responses by 12 July.

Two days later, the SC gave a go ahead to the floor test called by then Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari. The top court had refused to give any interim relief on a petition filed by the Thackeray group against the summoning of the Assembly by the governor.

Meanwhile, the Thackeray-led group had also filed a fresh petition challenging the appointment of a new speaker as well as the chief party whip of the Shiv Sena.

In August last year, the matter was eventually referred to a five-judge bench. As the hearing commenced on the petitions, lawyers for the Thackeray-led faction raised the issue of reviewing the Nabam Rebia verdict.

However, the bench Friday said, “Issue of reference cannot be decided in isolation without facts of the case. Issue of reference will be decided only with merits of the case.” The court has fixed 21 February to hear the matter further.


Also read: Buried alive as newborn, UP ‘miracle’ girl now at centre of neta vs foreigners adoption battle


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular