Proceedings Under 10th Schedule Should Not Be Reduced To A Charade: SC To Maharashtra Speaker On Delay In Deciding Disqualification Petitions
|The Supreme Court today made strong remarks against the Speaker of Maharashtra Legislative Assembly considering the delay in the matter to decide on the disqualification petitions filed against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and other Shiv Sena MLAs. The Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud remarked, “He (the Speaker) must take a decision within a period 2 months. Because you know, 6 months have elapsed. Some measure of seriousness has to be imparted to the tribunal under the 10th Schedule. Nobody is telling him how to decide, that is his discretion…These proceedings before the Tribunal under The 10th Schule (while saying that it is not a generalised statement) should not be reduced to a charade…”. The bench, however, on insistence listed the matter for further hearing on October 17, 2023.
The bench also comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, also noted that it will hold the petitioners from filing more documents in the matter.
The plea has been filed by Sunil Prabhu, who is a member of Uddhav Thackeray led Shiv Sena faction. It is pertinent to note that the Court had earlier directed the Speaker of Maharashtra legislative assembly to decide on the disqualification petitions filed against Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and other Shiv Sena MLAs, within one week. The Shiv Sena faction had tied up with the BJP to form a new government in June 2022. The plea alleges that Speaker, Rahul Narwekar is deliberately delaying the adjudication despite the May 11 verdict of the Apex Court. In the May 11, 2023 judgment, the Court had directed the Speaker to decide the matter ‘within a reasonable time’.
During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioner said, "This has become a farce milords...Yesterday he (the Speaker) heard the matter for 4 hours, only for clubbing…because the date was today (prompted Senior Advocate AM Singhvi). So if he rejects clubbing, then each matter will be heard separately, cross-examination separately, issue separately, milords what is this? Your lordships will have to decide what are the responsibilities of the Tribunal under the 10th Schedule, and how these matters are to be dealt with".
While citing a judgment, Sibal further submitted that the bench had observed that the matter is a summary procedure and not a trial in a civil court.
Turning towards Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Speaker virtually, the CJI said, "Mr. Solicitor somebody has to advise the Speaker, he can’t defeat the Supreme Court orders like this. What kind of time schedule is he prescribing? He has to sit down, hear the matter. This is a summary procedure. Last time we though that better sense would prevail, so we directed the Governor to lay down the schedule. Now the idea of schedule should not be to indefinitely defer the hearing because then their apprehension was correct".
"As far as speaker is concerned, there is no lis between the speaker and the parties. What has happened is the application come before the Court frequently seeking directions against the Speaker to decide in a particular manner", Mehta responded.
However, CJI, while refusing to accept the contention, noted, “...he must give us the impression that he is taking the matter seriously. All this time, since June, nothing has happened in this matter, no action…he must hear day to day and complete the hearing. He can’t say I will hear it twice a week and then after November I will decide when to post for final hearing. He is a tribunal which is amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court.
"Your lordships would not do this even to other tribunals that give us day to day account of what you did or you hear day to day", submitted Mehta. "For me, it is not a political matter, it’s a question of constitutional principle", he added further.
On that Sibal commented, "Oh really?!". "Yes, for me. Tushar Mehta", Mehta responded.
For the background, the pleas allege that Speaker, Rahul Narwekar is deliberately delaying the adjudication despite the May 11 verdict of the Apex Court. In its May 11, 2023 judgment, the Court had directed the Speaker to decide on the matter ‘within a reasonable time’.
On the last occasion, the CJI led bench had observed, “While this Court is cognizant of the need to ensure the sense of comity between the Speaker who is the head of the Legislative Assembly, we would equally expect deference and dignity to the directions which have been issued in the exercise of its constitutional power of judicial review. We now direct that the proceedings shall be listed before the Speaker who is constituted as an election tribunal under the X Schedule, no later than within a period of one week, when procedural direction shall be issued for completing the record and setting out the time schedule for the hearing of the disqualification petitions”.
Cause Title: Sunil Prabhu v. The Speaker, Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly