Former Chief Minister of Maharashtra Uddhav Thackeray. file. , Photo Credit: ANI
Former Maharashtra Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that scrapping of the Tenth Schedule (anti-defection law) to topple governments in important states is “fooled” by legislators and the Speaker in taking decisions. Has a “wide discretion” available to him. Cases of disqualification of legislators need to be reconsidered by a larger bench of seven judges.
Appearing for Mr Thackeray before a five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, senior advocate Kapil Sibal said the legislators were using the anti-defection law to “serve the cause of political immorality”.
constitution bench is hearing Series of petitions after political crisis Which rocked Maharashtra when current chief minister Eknath Shinde and his camp of followers revolted against Mr Thackeray and eventually toppled the Maha Vikas Aghadi government in early 2022.
Shri Sibal mentioned how MLAs facing disqualification under the Tenth Schedule are now issuing notices of removal against the Speaker/Deputy Speaker. “When such a notice is issued to remove the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker, he cannot function as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule… It has now become a tool legislators use to prevent their disqualification. Meanwhile, politics dominates. Government falls. A new Chief Minister is appointed with the support of the rebel MLAs. A new chairman has been installed and the disqualification proceedings are in abeyance…,” submitted Mr. Sibal.
Mr Shinde and 15 MLAs were issued notices by then Deputy Speaker Narhari Jariwal in a disqualification petition filed against them by the Thackeray camp. However, the MLAs responded by sending a notice to Mr Jariwal for his removal.
Mr Sibal said the legislators were taking refuge under a 2016 Supreme Court five-judge bench judgment nabam rebia Case.
nabam rebia The judgment said that the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker facing the notice of removal cannot decide the disqualification proceedings against the MLAs. “So what happens is a notice of expulsion is issued against the Speaker/Deputy Speaker just a day before the session is over. Thus, it cannot function as a tribunal under the Tenth Schedule…,” explained Mr. Sibal.
He said that the notice of removal against the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker should be presented during the session of the House and put to vote within seven days. “It will end all malpractices,” Mr Sibal said.
Secondly, he argued that the Speaker cannot be relied upon to act as an “impartial body” under the Tenth Schedule, as held by a five-judge bench of the Supreme Court in a majority judgement. kihoto holohan case in 1992.
Senior advocate said he agrees more with the minority view kihoto holohan ruling that the office of the Speaker does not meet the requirement of an “independent adjudicating authority” because their tenure depends on the continued support of the majority of the House.
“Then who will decide the disqualification petitions? We cannot throw out the baby with the bathwater… there has to be some constitutional certainty,” argued the court.
Mr Sibal said the court should decide the disqualification petitions. But the bench did not agree saying that the court cannot enter into the jurisdiction of the House.