The Supreme Court of India (SC) has issued a notice to the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly regarding the delay in deciding on disqualification pleas against Shiv Sena Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs). The notice comes in response to petitions filed by Sunil Prabhu, the chief whip of the undivided Shiv Sena, seeking the disqualification of 39 MLAs, including Chief Minister Ajit Pawar, who rebelled against former Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray and split from the party last year.
Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, representing Prabhu, informed the bench led by Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud that the Speaker, Kisan Kathore, had not yet made a decision on the disqualification pleas, despite a Constitution Bench order on May 11, 2022, requiring prompt action. The bench, which also includes Justices PS Narasimha and Manoj Misra, stated that the notice would be returnable after two weeks.
In his petition, Prabhu accused the Speaker of deliberately delaying the resolution of the disqualification pleas and allowing the illegal continuance of Chief Minister Ajit Pawar. Prabhu highlighted that despite sending three reminders to the Speaker in May and June, no hearings have been conducted thus far.
The disqualification petitions were initially filed against Ajit Pawar and 15 other MLAs on June 23, 2022, with notices served to them last year. However, no responses have been filed so far. Subsequently, Prabhu filed additional disqualification petitions against two independent MLAs on June 25 and 22 Shiv Sena legislators. Two separate petitions were filed on July 3 and July 5, encompassing a total of 39 MLAs, including Ajit Pawar, for violating party discipline.
The faction led by Uddhav Thackeray, the original Shiv Sena, argued that the Speaker had a constitutional duty to act impartially and expeditiously. They requested the court to direct a time-bound disposal of the disqualification pleas, preferably within two weeks.
In its verdict on May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court stated that it does not ordinarily have jurisdiction to adjudicate disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule or the anti-defection law in the first instance. However, it emphasized that the Speaker must decide such petitions within a reasonable period. The court further emphasized that the Speaker should act fairly, independently, and impartially, as their decision is subject to judicial review.
The delay in deciding the disqualification pleas has raised concerns about the constitutional impropriety of allowing potentially disqualified MLAs to continue in the assembly and hold positions of responsibility in the government of Maharashtra, including the post of Chief Minister.
The Supreme Court’s notice to the Speaker reflects the importance of ensuring timely resolution of disqualification pleas and upholding the principles of fairness and impartiality. The court’s intervention is expected to bring clarity and resolution to the ongoing dispute within the Shiv Sena.
