Maharashtra Politics- Shiv Sena Vs Shiv Sena- Supreme Court Hearing- LIVE UPDATES

Singhvi : This is not a normal case. Here the entire claim is based on support of majority MLAs. If they are disqualified, claim goes. Where does the balance of convenience lie? Why should it be made irreversible and fait accompli?

CJI : Suppose there are two groups, claiming they are the real political party. Can't they claim recognize the political party?

Sibal : They are saying they have support of 40 out of 50 MLAs. Their argument is therefore they are poltiical party. If 40 MLAS are disqualified, then what is the basis for their claim.?

CJI : Mr Sibal, it is a matter related to political party, can we stop them (ECI)? How can we prevent?

Sibal : They are not members, according to me they are disqualified.

Sr Adv Arvind Datar appears for Election Commision.

Kapil Sibal for Uddhav camp : This does not require to be referred to larger bench.

CJI :Let me see.

Salve : I am saying I have not left the party, somebody has to decide it. Can it be decided by this court or Speaker?

Salve : In every case allegations will be made against the Speaker, it is not something extraordinary. So Article 32 can't be invoked.

Salve : Today we are in a situation, the Speaker has not decided because of stay.

Salve : If a law is passed and they vote for the law, can you say the law is illegal because they are disqualified?

Salve : Relating back does not mean everything you have done in the house is rendered illegal. Then it will be havoc. Relating back means disqualification relates back but the actions in the house are protected.

Salve : In facts of this case, there is nothing to show that these people left the party.

Salve : There are two important cases. It may be that a political party can decide to condone. So it is not a per se illegality. And if months go by before disqualification is decided, are the votes given and decisions taken in the house, are they rendered illegal?