NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday disagreed with senior supporter Kapil Sibals proposal that provided the fundamental bias of speakers towards governing parties, the constitutional courts of jurisdiction concerned should be made the first forums for choosing disqualification petitions versus MLAs under the anti-defection law.When this argument was made by Kapil Sibal, standing for the Uddhav Thackeray-led Shiv Sena whose government was toppled by rebellion last June, the apex court said, Why should the courts get into an area which is exclusively booked for the speaker? While hearing senior advocate Kapil Sibals proposal in regard to a case associated to disqualification petitions versus MLAs, a Supreme Court bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha stated, Why should the courts get into an area which is solely reserved for the speaker? The courts can always be approached to challenge the decisions of the speakers in disqualification petitions.
The focus of 3 senior advocates - Sibal, A M Singhvi and Devadatt Kamat - was for an evaluation of the SCs July 2016 judgment in the Nabam Rebia case, in which it was ruled that a Speaker can not choose disqualification petitions versus MLAs if a notification for the speakers elimination is pending.
By this judgment, the SC had for the very first time in history restored the Congress federal government in Arunachal Pradesh annulling the Presidents Rule and subsequent formation of another government by rebel Congress MLAs with the aid of BJP.Seeking a seven-judge bench examination of the ruling in the Rebia judgment, Sibal said it is being misused by defecting MLAs to submit elimination notice against the Speaker to prevent him from proceeding versus them under the 10th Schedule.
He stated a five-judge SC bench in the Kihoto Hollohan judgment in 1992 had stated that constitutional courts ought to not interfere in the disqualification proceedings pending before the Speaker, however another five-judge bench in the Rebia case had actually interfered in the proceedings prior to the Speaker.
This requires reference of the problem - whether the Speaker can be debarred from choosing disqualification petitions against defecting MLAs pending a removal notification versus him - to a seven-judge bench, Sibal said.Rebia was utilized to unlawfully disempower the Speaker in Maharashtra from choosing disqualification petitions versus Sena rebel MLAs who then joined in an unholy alliance with competing celebrations to fall an elected Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government, said Sibal, who was arguing for the Thackeray faction of Shiv Sena, which snapped a pre-poll alliance with BJP to take assistance of rivals Congress and NCP to form government headed by chief minister Uddhav Thackeray.
Rebel Sena leader Eknath Shinde took oath as CM on June 30 last year, three days after the SC secured rebel MLAs from disqualification till July 12.
Members of the Thackeray faction have actually challenged the Speakers decision, the governors decision to invite Shinde to form government, and many related decisions.Sibal, now chosen to Rajya Sabha from Uttar Pradesh with the help of Samajwadi Party, said Rebia incorrectly restrained the Speaker from choosing disqualification petitions throughout pendency of elimination notice.
He stated the Speaker is a constitutional authority in addition to a tribunal, for choosing disqualification petitions against MLAs.