A Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud-led bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday offered a ‘final opportunity’ to Rahul Narwekar, the Speaker of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly to decide on the disqualification proceedings of Shiv Sena MLAs pending with him for over a year now..
During the hearing, the bench took note of comments made by Speaker Narwekar, asserting the Speaker’s office as a ‘co-equal’ branch. The bench further said that in the capacity of a ‘tribunal’ handling disqualification matters, the Speaker is subject to the jurisdiction of the top court.
The remarks came after the top court expressed its dissatisfaction on October 13 when hearing pleas from Shiv Sena and NCP MLAs expedited disqualification proceedings. The bench had raised concerns regarding the lengthy schedule for the Sena cases and called upon Speaker Narwekar to provide a suitable time estimate for processing the petitions.
Also Read: CJI raps Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar over delay in disqualification decision, says ‘can’t defeat SC orders like this’
The bench observed that the initial set of disqualification petitions related to the Shiv Sena had been filed in June and July of the previous year, while a second group of petitions concerning NCP MLAs was submitted between July and September of the current year.
On May 11, a five-judge Constitution bench, led by CJI Chandrachud, asserted that it could not interfere with proceedings at the “first instance.” However, the Speaker was urged to decide disqualification petitions within a “reasonable period” unless there were exceptional circumstances.
The bench repeated that typically, courts do not adjudicate disqualification pleas “at the first instance.”
Also Read: Who is Rahul Narwekar, man in the middle of NCP’s mega power tussle?
In Tuesday’s proceedings, a three-judge bench composed of CJI Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra noted, “Disqualification petitions have to be adjudicated upon with all expeditions. Otherwise, the very purpose of the Tenth Schedule shall stand defeated.”
Expressing their dissatisfaction with the previously proposed time schedule, the bench said, “The time schedule as proposed will not result in a foreseeable conclusion of disqualification pleas at a reasonably early date.”
After Speaker Narwekar requested additional time to provide the schedule, the bench firmly responded, “He (Speaker) has to decide. He goes on to give interviews that we are a co-equal branch, the Supreme Court is supreme in its own way. He is not doing his job. He is amenable to the jurisdiction of this court. We are not controlling what is happening on the floor of the House there, the House is absolutely supreme. But he is a tribunal, hearing disqualification proceedings.”
In response, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Speaker, expressed regret and clarified that he was unaware of any such interviews, suggesting that any such comments were likely unintended.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Sena, referred to a 2020 verdict by a three-judge bench led by Justice RF Nariman in the Keisham Meghachandra Singh vs. Speaker, Manipur Assembly case. This case established that, barring exceptional circumstances, the Speaker should decide disqualification pleas within a reasonable period of three months.
Solicitor General Mehta assured the Supreme Court that during the upcoming SC Dussehra break, he would personally connect with the Speaker to outline a set of modalities ensuring the early conclusion of disqualification petition hearings.
The Supreme Court scheduled the next hearing for October 30, granting a final opportunity to establish a realistic time schedule for the resolution of disqualification petitions, taking into account the assurance provided by the Solicitor General.