Uddhav Thackeray vs Eknath Shinde : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing In Shiv Sena case [Feb 23]
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will continue hearing today the cases related to Shiv Sena rift.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had been making arguments on behalf of Uddhav Thackeray for the past two days. Reports about yesterday's hearing can be read here and here. Reports about the hearing held on February 21 can be read here and here.A bench comprising Chief Justice of India...
A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court will continue hearing today the cases related to Shiv Sena rift.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal had been making arguments on behalf of Uddhav Thackeray for the past two days. Reports about yesterday's hearing can be read here and here. Reports about the hearing held on February 21 can be read here and here.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha is hearing the matter.
The constitution bench hearings will resume on 28th February 2023.
Singhvi: I will take a little bit of time on Tuesday.
The arguments have been concluded for the day and the Constitution bench has risen for today.
Singhvi: If there is an initial wrong- not in consonance with law, all subsequent consequences would fall through since the illegality strikes at the roots. This principle applies equally to judicial orders.
Singhvi: It's the promptitude of the court which has reduced the use and misuse of Articles.
Singhvi: They went with the BJP to the governor, in my case.
Singhvi: In Nabam Rebia, the court turned the clock back with eight months lapsed in between and the status quo ante was restored. Most of the government was changed.
Singhvi: When your lordships have to decide, you decide regardless of howsoever serious the consequences are.
Singhvi: Justice Bhagwati said that to accept fallability is not an act of heroism. Imagine the situation where your lordships say that demolish this building even if they know that it'll cause a lot of misery?
Singhvi cites the following judgements- Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Maurya and Srimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Hon'ble Speaker Karnataka.
Singhvi: Which of these will not call foul of 2(1)(a)? What can be the defence? That these photos are forged? All media reports are forged? I didn't go to the governor's house?