Introduction:

In a legal saga unfolding in Maharashtra, the Supreme Court grapples with the challenge to Speaker Rahul Narwekar’s decision on the disqualification of members within the Shiv Sena party. Sunil Prabhu, an MLA aligned with Uddhav Thackeray’s faction, questions the authenticity of the speaker’s approach, echoing concerns raised during the hearing. The court, led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, navigates the intricacies of legislative and organizational majority, assessing the implications of Speaker Narwekar’s reliance on a 1999 party constitution, contrary to the 2018 version. Urgency shadows the proceedings, with the assembly’s term set to expire later this year.

Arguments:

Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing Eknath Shinde’s faction, challenges the authenticity of pivotal documents, alleging forgery in the resolution of June 2022. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal emphasizes the urgency of a swift resolution, contesting the maintainability of the petition before the apex court. The debate extends to the constitutional routes under Article 32 and Article 226, with differing opinions on the appropriateness of invoking Article 32 directly.

Court’s Judgement:

The Chief Justice raises reservations about Speaker Narwekar’s approach, questioning its alignment with a previous constitutional bench judgment. The court underscores the distinction between legislative and organizational majority post-defection, suggesting a potential deviation from established legal principles. The matter is adjourned to April 8, leaving the question of maintainability open. Notably, the court summons original records from the legislative assembly, adding a layer of scrutiny to the speaker’s decision.