'Maharashtra crisis has serious ramifications': SC on plea to relook at Nabam Rebia verdict

The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it is tough to answer a plea for a relook at the 2016 Nabam Rebia case judgement — which restricted the power of the Speaker to examine a disqualification petition if a resolution for his removal is pending — in view of serious consequences.

“If you take Nabam Rebia position, as we have seen in Maharashtra... it allows the free flow of human capital from one party to another. The second end is that even if the leader of the political party has lost his flock, he can hold it down and thus adopting it would be ensuring a political status quo. Whichever way you accept, it has very serious consequences and not desirable (sic),” a five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud said.

The SC was dealing with legal issues arising from the rebellion faced by Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena in Maharashtra.

The Thackeray group, led by senior advocate Kapil Sibal sought a direction for reference to a larger bench for reconsideration of the 2016 judgement by a seven-judge bench.

Referring to Article 181 of the Constitution, which stated that the Speaker should not preside, while a resolution for his removal is pending, the bench, also comprising Justices M R Shah, Hima Kohli, Krishna Murari and P S Narasimha, said, “If you interpret it quite literally, there is only one disability on the Speaker.”

“When a motion for disqualification is there, he cannot preside on the motion but he can participate in it. Save and except this disability, the Constitution places no other disability on the Speaker. If a Speaker presides the motion of his removal, he will be violating the rule against bias,” the bench said.

The bench also cited Article 181(1), saying it embodied the principle of constitutional bias.

Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the Eknath Shinde group, said, there was no need for a reference of Rebia judgement to a larger bench.

Senior advocate Harish Salve, also for the Shinde group, said anti-defection law is not a weapon for a leader who has lost the faith of his legislators.

“There are layers of political morality in all of this and it is best for the court to stay away from all of this, these are complex questions,” he said, maintaining that the anti-defection law can not be used as the anti-dissent law.

Opposing the plea for reference, Salve said there are delicate constitutional issues which arose on case to case basis and must be dealt with.

Referring to facts of the case, he said, on June 28, former Maharashtra CM Thackeray was asked to prove his majority on the floor of the House. On June 29, Sunil Prabhu, chief whip, moved this court asking stay of this session, the Supreme Court declined it, and Thackeray subsequently resigned.

He also contended Rebia judgement had no role in the events that transpired in the state.

The bench, however, pointed out, the issue was not academic as had there been no communication from the governor to face the floor test, Thackeray would not have resigned.

To this, Salve said the governor’s communication could have been set aside, but that did not happen, and Thackeray did not face the floor test.

“Nabam Rebia becomes correct or wrong based on which side you are on,” the bench said.