Singhvi : In no single case, barring the Rajasthan HC in 2020, has the Courts interfered when the proceedings are pending before the Speaker.
Singhvi refers to "Kihoto" judgment, paras 109, 110, and says no action will lie before the Court till the Speaker decides finally.
Singhvi questions the petitioners "leap frogging" to the Supreme Court without approaching the High Court first.
"No reason given by Mr.Kaul why your lordships should not exercise the discretion to send them to HC"- he submits.
Sr Adv Rajeev Dhavan appears for Dy Speaker : Let my learned friend (Singhvi) argue. I will submit on legal issues.
SG Tushar Mehta : I think Dy Speaker is on caveat, and let us hear him.
Singhvi : My learned friend will not decide who will open first.
Bench seeks respondents' view. Sr Adv AM Singhvi appears.
SG interferes, "Just for my knowledge, who is Mr Singhvi representing?".
Singhvi : I am for R4 and R5 (the Shiv Sena legislative party leader and Sunil Prabhu, Chief Whip).
Kaul : There is undue hurry, undue haste in this matter. But that is the second limb. The first limb is, how can the Speaker proceed with the matter. Today, the notice for removal of Speaker must go first.
Kaul refers to Ashish Shelar judgment where SC set aside one year suspension of MLAs to say that in cases of extreme impropriety, the Supreme Court has interfered in Article 32.
Kaul : Today the Assembly is not in session. It is inconsequential. If the assembly is not in session, the Cabinet can recommend convene or when the assembly convenes the proceedings can start. But what is happening? Without following that, Dy Speaker has issued notices.
Kaul : So you give a notice, a 14 day period of notice goes before it is read out in assembly, and 21 members rise in support of it, but this procedure is not followed. The Speaker has no authority to deal with the issue till the question of his removal is decided.
Kaul refers to Rule 11 of the Maharashtra legislative assembly rules.