Sena Split: Supreme Court reserves verdict on referring matter to a larger bench

The Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena on Thursday opposed the demand of the Thackeray faction that the 2016 Supreme Court ruling on a Speaker's powers to deal with pleas regarding disqualification of legislators should be referred to a larger bench for reconsideration.

In its 2016 Nabam Rebia judgement, a five-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court had ruled that a Speaker cannot initiate disqualification proceedings when a resolution seeking his removal is pending adjudication in the House.

A five-member Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on Thursday reserved its order on the petitions. The bench will deliver its verdict on whether the Nabam Rebia judgment needs to be referred to a seven-member bench.


The Uddhav Thackeray faction argued that the Speaker has to proceed with alacrity, otherwise the government will be toppled. The Eknath Shinde faction argued that the pendency of the proceedings before the Speaker cannot be a valid basis to not have the confidence of the House in the government determined by the convening of a floor test.

Speaking for the bench, CJI Chandrachud verbally observed that it needs to be considered whether the Nabam Rebia judgment was applicable at all in the instant case. He observed that the Speaker created a problem for himself "may be due to political exigency". The CJI was referring to only two days' time given to the members of the House to respond to the disqualification notice.

Last year, after the Shinde faction moved the Supreme Court, the time to respond to the notice was extended by nearly a fortnight.

"Meanwhile, trust vote happens and Uddhav Thackeray. So, what could have happened to the party was never tested... The resignation of the chief minister (Thackeray) obviated the floor test... so the voting pattern was not revealed... So does Nabam Rebia arise?" the CJI orally remarked. He said it is an "interesting proposition" but can the court venture into this area without facts? "Speaker's resolution was not tested in the House and voting patterns did not emerge," he said.