Maharashtra Crisis: Why Did SC Defer Ruling On Larger Bench Reference? What Now?

The Shiv Sena rift case seeks to re-examine the top court's 2016 judgment in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker.

(Photo: The Quint)

The Supreme Court on Friday, 17 February, said that the request for reference of the case regarding the 2022 Maharashtra political crisis to a larger bench, will be heard along with the merits of the case and not separately.

What's the case about? This Maharashtra political crisis case seeks to re-examine the top court's 2016 judgment in Nabam Rebia v. Deputy Speaker.

Nabam Rebia: what is it? In Nabam Rebia, the top court had held that the speaker of a legislative assembly cannot initiate disqualification proceedings against Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) when a resolution seeking the speaker's removal is pending.

What now? The bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha passed the order and said that the matter be listed for hearing on merits of the case on 21 February.

Maharashtra political crisis 2022: The Maharashtra crisis, which led to the fall of the then state government headed by Uddhav Thackeray, is marked by the split of the Shiv Sena into two factions, one led by Thackeray and the other by Shinde, who went on to replace Thackeray as chief minister.

Rebel MLAs from the Shinde faction had been served disqualification notices from the then Deputy Speaker for acting against the party whip while voting during the Member of Legislative Council (MLC) elections in the State.

Back to the top court: The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether rebel members should be disqualified.

The apex court, in its Friday order, pointed out the diverse opinions by different judges in the Nabam Rebia verdict:

"In Nabam Rebia, three judgments were delivered by the constitution bench. The opinion of Justice JS khehar and Justice Dipak Misra held that speaker should stay hands when notice to disqualify him is moved. Justice Madan Lokur held that the views expressed by Justice Khehar and Mishra does not arise in those appeals," the top court said.

Thus, it said that the issue of reference cannot be decided isolated from the facts of the matter and, therefore, decided to hear it along with merits.

(With inputs from LiveLaw, Bar and Bench)