No Illegality In Issuing Disqualification Notices To Eknath Shinde & 15 Shiv Sena Rebels : Maharashtra Deputy Speaker To Supreme Court

Opposing the petitions preferred by rebel Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde (who was later sworn-in as the Chief Minister of Maharashtra) against the disqualification notices issued by the Deputy Speaker to rebel MLAs for proceedings under the tenth schedule of the Constitution over alleged defection, Maharashtra Deputy Speaker Narhari Sitaram Zirwal has submitted before the Top Court that that there was no illegality in granting 48 hours to respond to the said notices.

Referring to the Top Court's judgement in Shrimant Balasaheb Patil v Karnataka Legislative Assembly (2020) 2 SCC 595 wherein it was observed that timeline for filing of reply is purely discretionary and contending that the 48 hours notice was given in the first instance, Dy Speaker has further said that–

"There is absolutely no illegality in 48 hours being given to the Petitioners to respond to the disqualification petitions. First of all 48 hours notice was given in the first instance. The Petitioner never approached me and sought time. That apart, this Hon'ble Court in Shrimant Balasaheb apart from holding that the timeline for filing of reply is purely discretionary, has categorically also held that the number of days is immaterial and what matters is whether the respondent have been given sufficient and reasonable time to file their replies."

Laying emphasis on the MLA's approaching Top Court within 24 hours, Dy Speaker has further said–

"In the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the Respondents have within 24 hours approached the Supreme Court and challenged the notice issued by me, I fail to understand as to how and why 48 hours notice for them to file their replies in the first instance is itself unreasonable and violates the rule of natural justice."

The affidavit has been filed in the petition preferred by rebel Shiv Sena leader Eknath Shinde challenging the disqualification notices issued by the Deputy Speaker and plea filed by Bharat Gogawale and 14 other Shiv Sena MLA's seeking to restrain the Deputy Speaker from taking any action in the disqualification petition until the resolution for removal of Deputy Speaker is decided.

On June 27, the division bench of Justices Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala had extended the time for the rebel MLAs to file written responses to the Deputy Speaker's disqualification notice till July 12.

Notice Seeking Dy Speaker's Removal Sent From Email ID & Hand Delivered By Person Who Wasn't MLA

With regards to the notice seeking removal of Deputy Speaker, it has been argued in the affidavit that the same was rejected by him since it was sent from an email ID and was hand delivered by a person who wasn't a MLA.

Asserting that he doubted the authenticity/ veracity of the notice and thereby refused to take the same on record, Dy Speaker in the affidavit has stated that his actions cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional.

" The alleged notice received was on the Shivsena legislature party letterhead. Therefore, unless and until I was satisfied that this was not a mischief by someone I was duty bound and entitled to take a view that unless and until any of the signatories satisfy me by personal appearance or otherwise that they had actually signed the resolution, there was no question of taking the same on record. As a matter of fact had I taken it on record and acted upon it and Subsequently it came to be known that the notice/letter was fake and intended to cause mischief given the prevailing political circumstances, I would be guilty of dereliction of duty. In the peculiar facts obtained on the date when I refused to take the notice on record, my actions were that of a prudent person and a reasonable course of action. This can neither be said to be arbitrary, illegal or unconstitutional," the affidavit states.

Notice Seeking Removal Of Dy Speaker Invalid Under Article 179(c); Can Only Be Given When Assembly Is In Session

It has also been contended by the Deputy Speaker that the notice seeking his removal was not a valid notice under Article 179(c) of the Constitution since the said notice can only be given when the Assembly is in session.

"The notice also did not contain any specific charge against me. Article 179(c) only talk about removal of the speaker and therefore the notice must state that charge. Merely stating that the speaker / deputy speaker does not enjoy the confidence of the majority cannot be treated as a charge which would result in removal of the speaker, deputy speaker from his post," affidavit also states.

View Taken In Nabam Rebia's Judgement Not Applicable To Facts Of The Case

Since rebel MLAs had relied on Nabam Rebia v. Dy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Assembly, where it was held that it would be constitutionally impermissible for a Speaker to adjudicate upon disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule, while a notice of resolution for his own removal from the office of Speaker, is pending, Dy Speaker in his affidavit has also stated that the Rebia's judgement is not applicable to the facts of the case.

"I submit that the judgment in Nabam Rebia is not applicable to the facts of the present case. There was no valid notice of removal as contemplated under Article 179(c) read with the Assembly Rules. The reasons for refusing to take the notice have already been delineated hereinabove," the affidavit states.

Case Title: Eknath Rao Shinde v Dy Speaker, Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly & Ors| Diary No 19161 of 2022 & Bharat Gogawale & Ors. v Dy Speaker, Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly & Ors| Diary No 19162 of 2022