Maharashtra Politics- Shiv Sena Vs Shiv Sena- Supreme Court Hearing- LIVE UPDATES
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard the preliminary arguments in the cases relating to dispute between Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde arising out of the rift within the Shiv Sena political party.After hearing the senior lawyers appearing for both sides for over an hour, the bench adjourned the hearing till tomorrow morning, asking Senior Advocate Harish Salve (who appeared for Eknath...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard the preliminary arguments in the cases relating to dispute between Uddhav Thackeray and Eknath Shinde arising out of the rift within the Shiv Sena political party.
After hearing the senior lawyers appearing for both sides for over an hour, the bench adjourned the hearing till tomorrow morning, asking Senior Advocate Harish Salve (who appeared for Eknath Shinde group) to re-draft the written submissions for more clarity.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli was hearing the petitions filed by petitioners belonging to Eknath Shinde and Uddhav Thackeray factions of Shiv Sena party in relation to disqualification proceedings, election of Speaker, recognition of party whip, floor test for Shinde Government in the Maharashtra assembly and proceedings initiated by the Election Commission of India on request made by the Eknath Shinde-led faction for their recognition as the 'real' Shivsena and their claim over the party's election symbol - the bow and arrow.
A three-judge bench of the Supreme Court on July 20 had observed that the issues arising in the petitions filed in relation to the Shiv Sena rift may have to be referred to a larger bench. CJI NV Ramana orally remarked during the hearing that important constitutional issues arise in the cases which may require adjudication by a larger bench. However, the CJI made it clear that he is not immediately constituting the bench and the parties must first come up with the preliminary issues.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the Uddhav group. Senior Advocates Harish Salve, Neeraj Kishan Kaul and Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for the Shinde group. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the Maharashtra Governor.
READ THE LIVE UPDATES FROM SUPREME COURT HERE
CJI : Okay Mr.Salve, I will take as first case tomorrow morning
CJI : Let us see tomorrow morning. Salve will redraft his submissions.
Singhvi : On June 27, only me and Kaul were present. The only argument was that stop the Dy Speaker from deciding. Speaker's hands were tied and floor test was allowed.
Jethmalani : The decision of the Full House cannot be a matter for judicial review. Let the constitutionally and lawfully elected Speaker decide.
Jethmalani : The previous government did not elect a Speaker for over one year. The Constitution mandates that new Government must elect Speaker. On the new govt being elected after CM resigned, they have elected a Speaker after a contest. It was a majority of 154-99.
Jethmalani : New government came in not becuase the Chief Minister was defeated in the floor test. It was becuase he resigned. If a Chief Minister refuses to take the floor test, it has to be presumed he does not have majority.
Sr Adv Mahesh Jethmalani (For Shinde camp) : The propositions of the other side are based on theory of deemed disqualification.
Kaul : An argument is sought to be made that just because the disqualification is pending, which is the sole jurisdiction of the Speaker, in the meantime the EC should not excercise its jurisdiction. That cannot be. Two are unrelated.
Kaul : An IA has been moved in the petitions relating to disqualification to restrain the EC. It is the EC's exclusive jurisdiction to decide.
SG : In Manipur case also, the Court gave a time line as Speaker was not deciding. It is not a correct proposition of law to say that this Court can decide the disqualification issue at the first instance.