As the Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the Speaker to take a final decision “within a reasonable time” on the disqualification of 16 MLAs of the Eknath Shinde faction, Maharashtra Speaker Rahul Narvekar, who had upheld the speaker’s adjudicatory authority before the verdict , told CNN-News18 that the SC has done the “right” thing.
Read this also | Maha Sankat: ‘Shinde will not resign even in his dreams’ said Ajit Pawar; Uddhav again threatened to go to court
In June last year, Shinde and 39 MLAs rebelled against the Shiv Sena leadership, resulting in a split in the party. In the absence of the Speaker, Deputy Speaker Narhari Jirwal had issued disqualification notices to 16 Shiv Sena MLAs, including Eknath Shinde, accused of anti-party activities. The disqualification petition was filed by Sunil Prabhu, the Shiv Sena party whip appointed by Uddhav Thackeray on June 23, 2022, after the MLAs revolted against him and went to Guwahati. Thackeray resigned as chief minister before the trust vote, leading to the fall of the Maha Vikas Aghadi government (which also included the National Congress Party (NCP) and the Congress). Shinde later forged an alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to form the government in Maharashtra. Shinde was sworn in as chief minister on June 30, 2022, with BJP’s Devendra Fadnavis as deputy chief minister.
The Supreme Court held that Thackeray’s resignation was a mistake. A bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud said that if Thackeray had not resigned, the court would have restored status quo. “The status quo cannot be restored since Thackeray resigned,” the bench said. While pronouncing the verdict, the SC bench said that it was not proper for the governor to summon the MVA government for floor test in the assembly. The CJI said, “The Governor’s actions were not in accordance with the rule of law.”
Edited excerpts from the interview:
Talking to NW18 before the big SC decision, you had said that only the Speaker can decide on the disqualification of MLAs. Now the apex court has also ordered you to take a final decision on the disqualification of 16 MLAs of the Shinde camp within a reasonable time. When can we expect a decision as the present House is nearing its fourth year?
As I have said earlier, the SC has rightly exercised the powers and duties of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to decide issues relating to disqualification as per Schedule 10 of the Constitution of India. It is constitutional discipline that needs to be followed. All the three organs of our Constitution, the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive, are equal and none is superior to the other. They need to act within the scope of their jurisdiction mandated by the constitution. The power to decide on a disqualification petition rests only with the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and has been properly recognized by the courts. I welcome this decision.
With regard to the time taken to decide these petitions, the court has also asked the Speaker to decide who actually represents the Shiv Sena political party and set guidelines. We have to first see who the political party actually represents. Based on that, we will decide who should and will be the party whip in the state assembly and then we will decide on the merits of each petition whether the claims and allegations made in those petitions are tenable or not. All the rules of CPC will be applicable to the petition and hence under the principle of natural justice we have to give opportunity to every petitioner and respondent to present their case. There will be scrutiny, cross-examination and scrutiny of evidence, so the whole process needs to be followed. Only after that we will come to any conclusion in this matter.
… Under the principle of natural justice, we have to give an opportunity to every petitioner and respondent. There will be scrutiny, cross-examination and scrutiny of evidence, so the whole process needs to be followed. Only after that we will come to any conclusion in this matter.
As you are not giving me any timeline here, the Supreme Court judgment also says that both the Governor and the Speaker have erred in taking the decision. The Supreme Court has further stated that the Speaker’s decision to appoint Bharat Gogawale as Chief Whip of Shiv Sena was illegal and the issue should be examined by a larger bench. Apparently, the action of your office has been declared illegal. How will you protect your office?
The whip is not appointed by the office of the Speaker, it is only recognized by the Speaker. And if you look at the provisions of Schedule 10, there is absolutely no clarity with regard to whether a whip should be appointed by a political party and thus, in the scheme of things, a precedence has been followed in the Maharashtra State Legislature, Where a resolution is passed by a majority of the elected legislators and accordingly the whip is recognized by the Speaker. It has been seen in this case also. Now, the court has clearly mentioned that the whip has to be appointed as per the direction or wish of the political party.
… So we will be able to take a decision now in that regard, but I don’t think there is any malice for that decision. I think the court has only expanded to say that the appointment, which gives credence to the will of the legislature party, is probably bad in law. But now that he has clarified the issue, I think it will be easier for any Presiding Officer to take a decision.
There are some paragraphs in this decision which have raised questions on your role. The court noted that your office did not take into account the two factions of the Shiv Sena while deciding the matter and I quote, “The Speaker did not attempt to identify whether Mr. Prabhu or Mr. Gogawale was one of the two persons. Who were the whips that have been authorized by the political party.Is there any room for improvement?
I fully recognize that several judgments of the Supreme Court have dealt with the issue of separation of a political party from a legislature party and in the present case, the legislature party has moved a resolution to appoint a person as its whip. Had asked This was a precedent that has been followed in the State Legislature over the years. So there was nothing wrong in this decision. As far as deciding who actually leads a political party or perhaps is in control of a political party, I do not know how much of that falls under the jurisdiction of the Speaker. It is a broad spectrum. A political party is affiliated not only to the state assembly, but also to parliamentary parties, district council parties and local self-government bodies. Now that the court has said that the Speaker should decide who actually represents the political party, I am happy to do so. But the fact is that the precedent so far was different.
The Apex Court has questioned your official’s decision to keep the disqualification petitions against Mr. Shinde and other MLAs of his camp pending till the Election Commission favors them. Why did you choose to keep it pending?
First of all, let me say that we have not kept anything pending. Process is on.
Number two, initially the Court itself passed a judgment requesting the Speaker not to take a decision till the Bench is constituted after the recess. So, perhaps, giving utmost respect to the Judiciary, we have a very vibrant and democratic Judiciary, which calls upon every institution to respect and obey the constitutional mandates of the Judiciary, so we did. After that we continued the process and it is continuing. Now we will take it forward as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court. So, there is no bar on this.
Experts say that the Thackeray government was legal but unethical as it dumped its ideological ally and the government that stands today is illegal but perhaps ethical. Do you think this is a fair assessment?
As far as I am concerned, the legitimacy and majority of the government is established on the floor of the House. Till now he has been standing with the motion of confidence in the House. He has got more numbers than the majority. How can I call this government immoral? I would be doing them a disservice if I told them so. And I would be disrespecting the constitution.