On the Maharashtra political crisis, the Supreme Court has given clear instructions to the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker to take a decision on the disqualification petitions of Shiv Sena MLA by December 31.
The court said, “We do not want the matter to be pending till the next elections. If the Speaker cannot hold the hearing then, we will. We have repeatedly asked the Speaker to take a decision.” Making a big interference in the politics of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court has set a time limit for the Maharashtra Speaker. However, according to the amendment in the provisions of the 10th List, the court can only review the decision of the Speaker. Nevertheless, the strict stance of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is indicating something else.
In fact, the court has directed the Speaker to give a decision on the disqualification petition against CM Eknath Shinde and 33 MLAs of his group by December 31. Also, instructions have been given to take a decision in the NCP case by January 31.
During the hearing on the case, CJI Chandrachud said that it seems that an attempt is being made to make the disqualification petitions ineffective. It was argued on behalf of Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that Diwali and Christmas holidays will come and during this period the winter session will also come. On this, the court said that if the Speaker cannot hear these petitions, then it seems that the time has come for the court to hear them.
The CJI said in a strict tone that if the Speaker cannot hear these petitions in a time bound manner then it seems that the time has come to hear the petitions in this court. He said that this action cannot continue until the next elections are declared and render them ineffective. CJI has said that the Speaker should complete the hearing on the disqualification petitions by December 31 and take a decision.
Petitions should not be delayed due to procedural complications. The court directed that the proceedings should be completed by December 31, 2023 and instructions should be passed.
The Supreme Court gave the instructions to the Speaker during the hearing on the petitions filed by the Uddhav Thackeray faction and Sharad Pawar faction. In the petitions filed by both, the court was appealed to direct Speaker Rahul Narvekar to take an early decision on the disqualification petitions.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had set a deadline of September 18 for the Assembly Speaker to decide on the petitions. But since it has not been resolved, now once again the court has shown a strict stance.
The Story So Far: An Explainer
What is the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, can the Supreme Court hear disqualification petitions without the Speaker’s decision?
Originally, the Act provided that the decision of the presiding officer was final and could not be questioned in any court. But, in the Kihoto Holohan case (1992), the Supreme Court declared this provision unconstitutional on the grounds that it sought to take away the jurisdiction of the SC and the High Courts.
The court said that while deciding any question under the 10th Schedule the presiding officer should act as a tribunal. Therefore, its decision (like that of any other tribunal) is subject to judicial review on the grounds of mala fide etc. But, the court rejected the argument that conferring adjudication powers on the presiding officer was itself invalid.
Is there a time limit for the presiding officer to give his decision?
According to the 10th Schedule of the Constitution, there is no time limit within which the Presiding Officer must decide on the disqualification petition. The courts can also intervene only after the decision has been taken by the authority, and hence the only option for the petitioner is to wait until the decision comes. There are several cases where courts have expressed concern about unnecessary delays in deciding such petitions.
In some cases, situations have arisen where members who had seceded from their political parties continued to be members of the House due to delay in taking the decision by the Speaker or Chairman. There are also instances where opposition members have been appointed ministers in the government despite being members of their parent political parties in the state legislature.
The case of disqualification of members of Maharashtra Assembly is pending before the Supreme Court. Although the Supreme Court cannot directly intervene in this matter, but it can expect the Assembly Speaker to give a decision on the disqualification of the MLAs within a stipulated time limit.
That is why the Supreme Court has expected Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker Rahul Narvekar to pass a decision by December 31 regarding the eligibility and disqualification of Shiv Sena MLAs. So that he can review that decision. Similarly, the Supreme Court has also requested to give its verdict on the eligibility of NCP MLAs by 31 January.
