Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Noting that the issue of reference can’t be considered isolated from facts, the Supreme Court on Friday declined immediate reference of SCs 2016 ruling in Nabam Rebia to a seven-judge bench.
SC in Nabam Rebia had ruled that the Assembly speaker cannot proceed with a plea for disqualification of MLAs if a prior notice seeking his removal is a pending decision in the House.
The reference was sought by former Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray as the judgement had come to the rescue of the rebel MLAs led by Eknath Shinde, now the Chief Minister of Maharashtra.
The Thackeray faction had sought their disqualification even while a notice of the Shinde group for the removal of Maharashtra Assembly deputy speaker Narhari Sitaram Zirwal, a Thackeray loyalist, was pending before the House.
While pronouncing the order, CJI DY Chandrachud also said that if reference of the decision in Nabam Rebia to a larger bench is warranted would have to be determined together with the merits of the case and posted the case to be heard on merits from February 21.
“The issue of whether a reference to a bench of 7-judges is to be made cannot be considered in the abstract, isolated and divorced from the facts of the case. Whether the principle formulated in Nabam Rebia has an impact on the factual position in the present case needs deliberation. Against the above backdrop, the issue of whether the reference of the decision in Nabam Rebia to a larger bench is warranted would be determined together with the merits of the case. Consequently, the batch of cases is set down for hearing on merits on Tuesday, February 21,” the court said in its order.
During the hearing, CJI DY Chandrachud had yesterday opined that bar on the speaker for entertaining a disqualification plea while a resolution for his removal has been issued much be attached since the speaker acts as an adjudicator under the 10th schedule. He also added that this has very serious consequences as finality is also added to adjudication since MLAs lose their seats. CJI further added that the speaker perhaps created a problem himself maybe out of political exigency.
NEW DELHI: Noting that the issue of reference can’t be considered isolated from facts, the Supreme Court on Friday declined immediate reference of SCs 2016 ruling in Nabam Rebia to a seven-judge bench.
SC in Nabam Rebia had ruled that the Assembly speaker cannot proceed with a plea for disqualification of MLAs if a prior notice seeking his removal is a pending decision in the House.
The reference was sought by former Maharashtra CM Uddhav Thackeray as the judgement had come to the rescue of the rebel MLAs led by Eknath Shinde, now the Chief Minister of Maharashtra.
The Thackeray faction had sought their disqualification even while a notice of the Shinde group for the removal of Maharashtra Assembly deputy speaker Narhari Sitaram Zirwal, a Thackeray loyalist, was pending before the House.
While pronouncing the order, CJI DY Chandrachud also said that if reference of the decision in Nabam Rebia to a larger bench is warranted would have to be determined together with the merits of the case and posted the case to be heard on merits from February 21.
“The issue of whether a reference to a bench of 7-judges is to be made cannot be considered in the abstract, isolated and divorced from the facts of the case. Whether the principle formulated in Nabam Rebia has an impact on the factual position in the present case needs deliberation. Against the above backdrop, the issue of whether the reference of the decision in Nabam Rebia to a larger bench is warranted would be determined together with the merits of the case. Consequently, the batch of cases is set down for hearing on merits on Tuesday, February 21,” the court said in its order.
During the hearing, CJI DY Chandrachud had yesterday opined that bar on the speaker for entertaining a disqualification plea while a resolution for his removal has been issued much be attached since the speaker acts as an adjudicator under the 10th schedule. He also added that this has very serious consequences as finality is also added to adjudication since MLAs lose their seats. CJI further added that the speaker perhaps created a problem himself maybe out of political exigency.
