Uddhav Thackeray vs Eknath Shinde : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing In Shiv Sena case [Feb 23]

CJI DY Chandrachud: But suppose you take this- that Nabam shouldn't prevent the speaker and these 39 are liable to be excluded- because it's a per se disqualification. What is the consequence? 

CJI DY Chandrachud: Applying Nabam here, the speaker could not have decided. Nabam says that where a motion of removal of speaker is pending, he cannot decide on disqualification. You say refer it to a larger bench.

Singhvi: The argument was that if you're staying this, stay that also. It's very unfair and even. 

Singhvi: The fact is nothing happened on 30th, the man didn't go. We're on legal errors. 

CJI DY Chandrachud: The voting pattern would show if these 39 affected the trust vote. If you lost the trust vote only because of these 39, you'd know that if they were disqualified, you'd win.

CJI DY Chandrachud: If you had faced the trust vote, these are open votes, and lost- it would have been clear if these 39 people made a difference.

Singhvi: One argument was that this trust vote was futile because it was a tainted fruit. The other argument was that if you stayed that, stay this also.

Singhvi: The one conclusion, instead of suffering the humiliation of a vote, is to give up in advance! We're in a real world. There is no arithmetic, no science or physics, which can change the result on 30th.

Singhvi: It is true that on 29th, nobody would know what would happen on 30th. And it is true that the technical word used is trust vote but what was allowed to go on was a test on the floor which is inevitable if 39 vote against.

Justice MR Shah: Where is the question of status quo ante?

Singhvi: There are two answers- one answer I have three minutes ago. Your lordships court is a court of substance.