Supreme court on shivsena

Premium Sena vs Sena: Month after SC verdict, Speaker yet to kick off process in MLAs’ disqualification case as MVA cries foul SC asked Speaker to act on the matter within a ‘reasonable period’; Oppn alliance has been alleging that Rahul Narvekar is delaying the matter in order to ‘safeguard’ CM Shinde and his MLAs A MONTH AFTER the Supreme Court (SC) pronounced its verdict on the legal battle between the two Senas and asked Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Speaker Rahul Narvekar to take a decision on the disqualification proceedings against 16 MLAs from the undivided Shiv Sena, Narvekar is yet to start the process. He has not issued notices to any of these MLAs in this regard so far. While delivering its judgment on May 11, a Constitution bench of the SC said it would not interfere in the disqualification proceedings against 16 Sena MLAs, including Chief Minister Eknath Shinde, pending before the Speaker, saying that the Speaker must decide on the same within a “reasonable period”. A month on, there is very little movement on the matter. “Delaying tactics are being used. The court has not mentioned a specific timeframe, but the court spoke of a reasonable time. We have already given reminders to the Speaker. After the completion of one month, we will again give him a reminder. Despite that, if he does not specify the definition of ‘reasonable time’ or act upon the reminders, then we are free to approach the SC again,” Sena (UBT) MLC Anil Parab told The Indian Express. Als...

live BIG Relief For Shinde; SC Says ‘Can’t Restore MVA Govt as Uddhav Voluntarily Resigned as CM’ The top court is dealing with the issue of disqualification of 16 MLAs belonging to CM Shinde’s Sena. The 16 MLAs, including Shinde, were sent disqualification notices for not attending a party meeting convened by the then CM Uddhav Thackeray despite the whip which was issued. New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said that had Uddhav Thackeray refrained from resigning as the chief minister of Maharashtra, the court could have reinstated him, but the court cannot quash a resignation. The top court also held that the Governor erred in concluding that Uddhav Thackeray had lost the majority in the House. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud said the court cannot quash the resignation submitted by Thackrey. The bench noted that the petitioners argued for restoring the status quo ante, however, Thackeray did not face the floor test. Also Read: • • • The top court held that the Maharashtra Governor erred in concluding that Uddhav Thackeray had lost the majority in the House. The bench said the lack of security to MLAs (Eknath Shinde faction) is not a reason to conclude that a government has fallen and it was nothing, but an extraneous reason to be relied upon by the Governor. The top court said the Governor had no objective material to doubt the confidence of the Maha Vikas Aghadi government and to call for a floor test. The Constitution Bench comprising Ch...

• • • • Supreme Court verdict on Maharashtra: What was the 2022 political crisis in the state? Supreme Court verdict on Maharashtra: What was the 2022 political crisis in the state? Rival groups of Shiv Sena – the Eknath Shinde group and the Uddhav Thackeray group – petitioned the SC last year in relation to the political crisis in the state. Here is a recap of the allegations of horse trading, alliances, resort politics and more. The Supreme Court will soon give its verdict today on the political turmoil triggered in Maharashtra last year in June that led to then Chief Minister and Shiv Sena leader Uddhav Thackeray stepping down from his post, after his party’s MLA Eknath Shinde broke away to assert his own faction’s supremacy. Shinde then became the CM in July 2022 with the BJP’s support. The list of business for the day in the Supreme Court showed a unanimous verdict from the five-judge Constitution bench that is headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY and includes Justices MR Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha. What was the Shiv Sena case? Rival groups of Click here for more These various alliances were preceded by a hung Assembly in the 2019 elections. The BJP emerged as the party with the most seats (105), but it fell short of the majority mark of 145 in the 288-seat Assembly. Shiv Sena (56) and the NCP (54) followed in terms of seats’ share. Along with the Congress and support from some other parties, a government was formed. Why was there a politic...

By Aneesha Mathur: The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Election Commission of India to not take up the hearing in the Thackeray vs Shinde split of the Shiv sena for the next two days. The bench headed by CJI NV Ramana has referred the complicated legal matter to a 5-judge Constitution bench, which is scheduled to start hearing the legal issues on Thursday, August 25. "These cases have raised important questions relating to schedule 10, power of speaker and deputy speaker etc," observed the bench of CJI NV Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli in its order referring the issue to the Constitution Bench. Following the order, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Uddhav Thackeray faction, also sought a stay on the proceedings before the Election Commission of India. The ECI was scheduled to hear the contesting claims made by the Shinde Faction and the Uddhav faction on the election Symbol and the leadership of the Shiv Sena. "If Eknath shinde is disqualified then he could not have filed the ECI petition. ECI cannot hear Petition by a person who is under Disqualification proceedings," argued Sibal The Court has framed the following legal questions for the Constitution bench to consider: -Whether the notice of removal of the speaker restricts him from continuing the disqualification proceedings under Schedule X of the Indian Constitution -Whether a petition under Article 226 and Article 32 lies inviting a decision on a disqualification proceeding by t...

A Constitution bench ruling on Thursday that will have far-reaching implications for Maharashtra’s politics. The five-judge bench in the Supreme Court will deliver its judgment on a bunch of petitions pertaining to last year’s split in the Shiv Sena between PREMIUM New Delhi, Jan 10 (ANI): A view of the Supreme Court building, the apex judicial body of India, in New Delhi on Tuesday. (ANI Photo) (Sanjay Sharma) Also read: ‘Idiotic’: Devendra Fadnavis rebuts Oppn on Eknath Shinde’s future after SC verdict Issues before the Supreme Court Among a spate of issues, one of the key decisions that apex court is expected to make is on the validity of then Governor Bhagat Singh Koshyari’s mandate to Thackeray for facing a floor-test. This sparked the political upheaval in the state with Thackeray resigning and Shinde taking over as CM on the very next day. Connected to this crucial issue will be Koshyari’s invitation to Shinde to form the government even as disqualification proceedings against him and the MLAs of his faction under the anti-defection law were pending before the then deputy speaker. In case the five-judge bench rules that Koshyari’s decisions were unconstitutional, it will then also have to give its ruling on the validity of the Shinde-Fadnavis government, besides answering what it called, during one of the hearings, a “legal conundrum” surrounding the political fate of Thackeray who chose to resign instead of facing the floor test. The top court will answer to Thacke...

By Nalini Sharma, Srishti Ojha: In its verdict on the Maharashtra political crisis brought on by the rift in the Shiv Sena, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench on Thursday held that it cannot order the restoration of the Uddhav Thackeray government as he resigned as CM without facing a floor test. While dealing with the various issues involved in the case, especially the role of the Assembly Speaker and the governor of the state, the top court made several observations. Here's a look at the key points from the judgment: READ | 1. The Supreme Court explained why the 2016 verdict regarding power of the Speaker needs to be referred to a seven-judge bench. "Nabam Rebia is in conflict with the judgment in Kihoto Hollohan. The decision in Kihoto Hollohan holds that there is no reason to doubt the independence and impartiality of the Speaker when adjudicating on proceedings under the Tenth Schedule. In contrast, Nabam Rebia doubts the ability of the Speaker to remain neutral while deciding disqualification petitions after a notice for his removal has been issued," the SC said. 2. The Supreme Court laid down the procedure for the Speaker in the interim: • The Speaker has discretion to rule on the application that asks them to refrain from deciding on disqualification while the plea for their removal is pending. • The Speaker should decide if the application is bonafide or intended only to evade adjudication. Speaker can accordingly allow the plea or reject it. • Any decision of t...

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today admitted The Supreme Court has also assured status quo on the issue that has been the bone of contention since the split of the party last year. The Uddhav Thackeray faction had urged the Supreme Court to decide the disqualification proceedings against Mr Shinde and the MLAs belonging to the rival camp. Eknath Shinde was named as the Shiv Sena chief at a key meeting of the party yesterday. This came days after the poll body's decision. Here are the updates on the case: The Supreme Court rejected the suggestion of the Uddhav Thackeray faction of the Shiv Sena to decide the disqualification proceedings pending against Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde and MLAs belonging to his camp, saying it cannot assume the role of the Speaker as doing so will have "serious ramifications". Nationalist Congress Party Chief Sharad Pawar today reacted on the battle between the Thackeray and Shinde factions and said "I've never seen the Election Commission take away control of one party." Mr Pawar earlier said he "doesn't want to get involved in the controversy regarding the name and symbol given to Eknath Shinde." He adviced Uddhav Thackeray to accept the election body's decision and said "It will not impact as people will accept (the new symbol). It would just remain in the discussion for the next 15-30 days." The Supreme Court admitted Uddhav Thackeray's plea today.