Supreme Court Awaits Disqualification Petition Timeline Amid Shiv Sena Rift
In a significant turn of events, the Supreme Court, under the leadership of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, has granted a “final opportunity” to the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, Rahul Narwekar, urging him to provide a “realistic time schedule” for the disposal of disqualification petitions stemming from the internal rift within the Shiv Sena.
The apex court’s decision comes in the wake of pleas by MLAs from both the Shiv Sena and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), who sought expedited disqualification proceedings. The bench had previously voiced its displeasure over the extended timeline proposed for the Shiv Sena cases and had prompted Narwekar to offer a more appropriate time estimate for hearing the petitions.
Highlighting the urgency and significance of the matter, the bench, which also included Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, observed,
“Disqualification petitions have to be adjudicated upon with all expeditions. Otherwise, the very purpose of the Tenth Schedule shall stand defeated.”
They further noted their dissatisfaction with the previously indicated time schedule, emphasizing that it would not lead to a foreseeable conclusion in a reasonably early timeframe.
In a notable remark, CJI Chandrachud stated,
“He (Speaker) has to decide. He goes on to give interviews that we are a co-equal branch, the Supreme Court is supreme in its own way. He is not doing his job. He is amenable to the jurisdiction of this court. We are not controlling what is happening on the floor of the House there, the House is absolutely supreme. But he is a tribunal, hearing disqualification proceedings.”
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Speaker, expressed his unawareness of such interviews and conveyed his regrets. He mentioned that if any such comments had indeed been made by his client, they would likely have been unintended.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Shiv Sena faction, referred to a 2020 verdict by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court led by Justice RF Nariman. This verdict emphasized that the Speaker should decide on disqualification pleas within a reasonable period of three months, barring exceptional circumstances.
SG Mehta assured the court that during the upcoming Dussehra break, he would personally engage with the Speaker to establish a firm set of modalities, ensuring a swift conclusion to the hearing of the disqualification petitions.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court, scheduling the next hearing for October 30, noted,
“Before this Court issues peremptory directions for compliance with a time schedule for disposal, we grant a final opportunity to prescribe a realistic time schedule for the disposal of disqualification petitions, particularly, in view of the assurance given to the Court by the Solicitor General.”
The unfolding events around the disqualification petitions and the apex court’s involvement underscore the intricate balance between the judiciary and the legislative branches, with the outcome eagerly awaited by political and legal observers alike.
