SC grants relief to rebel Sena MLAs, no decision be taken on their disqualification till July 11

The matter will now be heard on July 11

The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday virtually kept the disqualification proceedings initiated against 16 rebel Shiv Sena MLAs led by Eknath Shinde in abeyance, by extending the time for them to file their response to the notice issued by the Deputy Speaker, till July 12.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and J B Pardiwala said the status quo needs to be maintained in the matter, in order to decide the competing claims. The 16 MLAs were given time to file their response by 5:30 pm Tuesday.

"We have to decide very competence of the Deputy Speaker if he is entitled to proceed with the matter. Today, we have to ensure that the matter does not become infructuous," the bench said.

Also Read | Maharashtra crisis: Camp Shinde a unique mix of MLAs

Maharashtra has been facing political imbroglio as Shinde, a minister and Shiv Sena Legislature Party leader, along with other MLAs are holed up in a hotel at Guwahati. The rebel leaders are opposed to continuance of Maha Vikas Aghadi government led by Shiv Sena in alliance with NCP and Congress.

Acting on writ petitions filed by Shinde and 15 of supporting MLAs, the top court also sought a response the Deputy Speaker to explain if he should deal with the disqualification proceedings until a question related to his removal is decided as the rebel MLAs had served a notice of having no-confidence in him.

The court also issued notice to the Maharashtra government, newly appointed chief whip of Shiv Sena Sunil Prabhu and leader of Shiv Sena Legislature Party Ajay Chaudhary and the Union government among others in the matter.

Maharashtra Crisis Live Updates

It also recorded a statement from the Maharashtra government counsel that no harm to life and properties of 39 rebel MLAs, staying in Guwahati, and their families would be caused, in view of repeated threats issued to them and incidents of vandalism of their offices.

The top court also refused to consider for now a plea that till the time issue related to disqualification is decided, no floor test can be conducted in Maharashtra Assembly.

It fixed the matter for hearing on July 11, on reopening of courts after the summer vacations. The top court also decided to keep alive the question of maintainability of writ petitions filed by rebel MLAs as the Uddhav Thackeray's faction contended that they should have approached the High Court first instead of "leapfrogging" to the top court.

Senior advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul, appearing for the MLAs, questioned the "undue haste and hurry" shown by the Deputy Speaker in issuing notice on the disqualification petitions. He maintained that the Deputy Speaker had no authority to decide the disqualification petitions, until the matter of his removal is not adjudicated upon under Article 179 C of the Constitution.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Shiv Sena Legislature Party leader and Chief Whip, contended that there was no reason for not sending the rebel MLAs to the High Court.

Senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, appearing for the Deputy Speaker, a notice sent by rebel MLAs on June 22, expressing no confidence in him, was not taken on record and rejected as he was not sure of genuineness and authenticity of emails.

"A fly-by-night notice cannot do in such cases. We will file a detailed reply," he said.

Senior advocate Devadutt Kamat, also appearing for Shiv Sena Legislature Party leader and Chief Whip, submitted that a bogey of no confidence against the Speaker and Deputy Speaker is unsanctioned under the law, as the removal has to be due to a cause, it is only on charge.

"If it is so, this would be having far reaching consequences because the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker would be condemned unheard," the bench said.

Kamat also submitted that till date, no order has been passed by the Supreme Court in any case, staying the disqualification proceedings. The Speaker can't be interdicted to deal with the disqualification proceedings, till a final order is passed, no judicial review is applicable, he said.

The court, however, said here the very authority of the Deputy Speaker to decide the matter has been questioned.