BJP leaders including Ram Kadam, Pravin Darekar leave late in the night from the residence of party leader and former Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis
Eknath Shinde camp moves Supreme Court against Shiv Sena's move to disqualify 16 MLAs
Rebel Shiv Sena MLA Eknath Shide spoke to MNS chief Raj Thackeray over phone twice
Shinde spoke to Thackeray about the recent political situation in Maharashtra and enquired about his health, an MNS leader confirmed
CM Uddhav Thackeray will address Shiv Sainiks in Mumbai's Govandi at 6 pm today
Senior advocate and Congress MP Abhishek Singhvi is all set to represent Shiv Sena in the Supreme Court on the plea filed by rebel camp leader Eknath Shinde and Bharat Gogawale.
The rebel Sena camp is likely to be represented by senior advocate and Queen's Counsel Harish Salve and Neeraj Kishan Kaul. Ravi Shankar Jandhyala will appear for Deputy Speaker Narhari Zirwal
The supporters of rebel MLA Eknath Shinde will gather at Thane's Anand Ashram at 10 am to perform a power show: Reports
Eknath Shinde calls for a meeting of the rebel MLAs at Radisson Blu ahead of the SC hearing
Sanjay Raut defends his 'baap' remark before SC hearing, "What wrong did I say? I only tweeted what Gulabrao Patil said. What he said was correct for all those sitting in Guwahati (rebel MLAs). How can people change their fathers."
Further taking a dig at rebel MLAs, Raut added, "Deepak Kesarkar, Uday Samant were all close to us. Even Eknath Shinde was also close. We shared happiness and sorrow. This is now a street fight and a legal fight."
Shinde calls a meeting at 2 pm to discuss further course of action.
Sanjay Raut denies reports stating his brother and Vikhroli MLA Sunil Raut is in touch with rebel MLAs group.
The Supreme Court bench of Justices- Surya Kant and JB Pardiwala will be hearing a plea filed by Shinde and Bharat Gogawale against Deputy Speaker Narhari Zirwal today.
Shinde chairs a key meeting of rebel MLAs at Guwahati hotel. MLA Uday Samant, who joined the rebel camp yesterday, is also set to address Facebook Live at 11 am.
2-judges bench assembles in the apex court, hearing underway. Shinde camp pleas are listed at item 34 and 35.
In a massive development, 38 Sena MLAs have claimed to have withdrawn their support to the MVA government.
Security ramped up in Thane ahead of Shinde's show of strength at Anand Ashram.Â
PIL filed in Bombay HC against Eknath Shinde
Seven citizens of the state have moved a public interest litigation (PIL) in the Bombay High Court to consider their fundamental rights and direct rebel MLA Eknath Shinde to return and assume duties. When the matter was mentioned before the bench led by CJ Dipankar Datta, he said, "Submit the pracipice we will see".
Eknath Shinde takes a dig at CM Thackeray as SC hears the matter
The Maharashtra Minister questioned, "Do you not feel any pain while sitting in the cabinet with Chhagan Bhujbal who arrested Hindu Heart Emperor Shiv Sena chief Balasaheb Thackeray?"
In a following tweet, he added, "After the arrest of Balasaheb, Sabne was suspended for a year."
According to ANI, cases are listed before the top court and are likely to come up for hearing after 12-12.30pm.
BJP leader and ex-CM Devendra Fadnavis chairs meeting with a few senior BJP leaders, including Ashish Shelar, at his Mumbai residence: Reports
NCP leader Praful Patel has also reached party supremo Sharad Pawar's Silver Oak residence to meet Supriya Sule. Reportedly, other party leaders are also expected to arrive there.
Shiv Sena new leader Ajay Chaudhary arrives at Vidhan Bhavan.
Eknath Shinde's son Shrikant tells the media that they are positive about the hearing and the decision will be in their favour. "This is not betrayal, this is what people of Maharashtra wanted," he said.Â
In a key development, Enforcement Directorate (ED) has summoned Shiv Sena leader Sanjay Raut, and asked him to appear tomorrow in connection to Pravin Raut and Patra Chawl land scam case. His some properties had been attached by ED earlier.
Shiv Sena leader and member of Rajya Sabha Priyanka Chaturvedi takes an unveiled dig at BJP as ED summons Sanjay Raut
MNS leader Bala Nandgaonkar denies reports of merger with Shinde faction, says, "No discussion about it with MNS."
CM Thackeray removes rebel MLAs from their ministries
In response to rebel MLAs' withdrawal of support, CM Uddhav Thackeray has reshuffled the departments of ministers so that the issues of public interest are not neglected or ignored
Ekanth Shinde's Urban development & MSRTC ministry has been handed over to Subhash Desai, while Gulabrao Patil's ministry charge handed over to Anil Parab, & Udaya Samant, Sandeepan Bhumare & Dada Bhuse's ministry's charge given to Aditya Thackeray.
In his first response to ED's summons, Sanjay Raut decried 'conspiracy'
MVA govt has lost majority as 38 MLAs have withdrawn support: Rebel Shinde in SC plea
Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) alliance has lost the majority in the house as 38 of the members of the Shiv Sena Legislature Party have withdrawn their support thus bringing it below the majority in the house, said Maharashtra Minister Eknath Shinde in his petition filed in Supreme court.
The SC bench began hearing the plea filed by rebel MLAs
Shinde camp files new application in the court citing threats from Uddhav camp
Just a few moments before the hearing, the Shinde camp filed a fresh application stating that the lives of the rebel MLAs are under serious threat from the Shiv Sena party workers.
The application also said that the MVA administration in the state has lost control of law and order in the state.
SC asks adv Neeraj Kaul why he has not approached the High Court with his plea
Adv Kaul answered they didn't approach the HC as SC had passed the order in many number of cases like floor test, disqualification.
He added, "Third reason is that a minority of the legislative party is subverting the state machinery, attacking our houses, saying that our dead bodies will be returned. Atmosphere is not conducive for us to exercise our rights in Bombay."
Advocate Kaul, representing rebel MLAs, further said that threats have been issued to Shinde camp that "Bodies of 40 parties will arrive and we will be slaughtered like bulls."
Kaul says 'Impermissible for Dy Speaker to decide disqualification plea'
Adv Neeraj Kishan Kaul for the petitioners says that the Deputy Speaker cannot proceed with the disqualification proceedings when the resolution seeking his removal is pending. He cited the "Nabam Rebia" decision of the SC.
Here in his argument, adv Kaul refers to the judgment in "Nabam Rebia vs Dy Speaker, Arunachal Pradesh Assembly" (2016) 8 SCC 1.
SC to resume hearing after a short break
SC hearing resumes, adv Kaul reads from Nabam Rebia decision, "Why would a Speaker who is confident of his majority, fear a floor test?"
Responding to SC's query, adv Kaul read quotes from Nabam Rebia, "The office of Speaker, with which the Constitution vests the authority to deal with disqualification petitions against MLAs, must surely be a Speaker who enjoys confidence of the Assembly."
He added, "Any change in the strength and composition of the Assembly, by disqualifying sitting MLAs, for the period during which the notice of resolution for the removal of the Speaker (or Deputy Speaker) is pending, would conflict with the express mandate of Article 179(c)."
Kaul argues, "We are of the view, that constitutional purpose would be maintained & preserved, if a Speaker refrains from adjudication of a petition for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule, whilst his own position, as Speaker, is under challenge."
Adv Kaul seeks removal of Speaker and Deputy Speaker, referring to Article 179 and Rule 11 of the Maharashtra Legislative assembly rules.
The lawyer representing the Shinde camp critically argued, "So you give a notice, a 14 day period of notice goes before it is read out in assembly, and 21 members rise in support of it, but this procedure is not followed. The Speaker has no authority to deal with the issue till the question of his removal is decided."
"Today, the Assembly is not in session and is inconsequential. If the assembly is not in session, the Cabinet can recommend convene or when the assembly convenes the proceedings can start. However, without following that, Deputy Speaker has issued notices."
Kaul said that there is 'undue hurry, undue haste' in the matter. "But that is the second limb. The first limb is, how can the Speaker proceed with the matter. Today, the notice for removal of Speaker must go first," he said.
SC Bench seeks respondents' view. Senior Adv Singhvi, representing Shiv Sena begins his argument.Â
Adv Singhvi questions the petitioners "leap frogging" to the SC without approaching the HC first.
Dr Singhvi submits, "No reason given by Mr.Kaul why your lordships should not exercise the discretion to send them to HC."
He argued, referring to 'Kihoto' judgment, "In no single case, barring the Rajasthan HC in 2020, has the Courts interefered when the proceedings are pending before the Speaker."
Justice Kant questions, "Was it also a case where the continuation of Speaker was in question?"
To which, adv Singhvi denies, adding, "That was not in issue until Nabam Rebia in 2016. But in Nabam, Court interfered with a final order. Nabam Rebia is consistent with Kihoto in holding that let Speaker decide finally."
Singhvi refers to decision in Manipur MLAs case to say there are limited grounds for Court to interfere in interim
When the Speaker disqualifies MLA in interim
Court can pass interim orders setting time limit for final decision.
Justice Kant makes an important point by asking, "Where a Speaker's removal under Article 179(c) is under consideration, whether such Speaker is competent to decide under 10th Schedule? Whether this issue has been considered in any of the cases"
Dr Singhvi strongly submits, "Referring to Article 212, there is a Consitutional bar on the courts inquiring into the legislative procedure. Article 212 bars your lordships scrutiny when the Speaker is deciding. All internal management is barred from judicial scrutiny." Here, he is trying to say that the powers of the SC in such cases are 'limited'.
Continuing the hearing, Justice Kant asks, "are we really dealing with the proceedings of the Assembly?"
Singhvi reads out the para from Kihoto, "Judicial review cannot be available at a stage prior to the making of a decision by the Speaker or Chairman and a quia- timet action would not be permissible. Nor would interference be permissible at an interlocutory stage of the proceedings"
Justice Kant says, "Is it not a fact that in Kihoto case, the very authority of Speaker was not challenged? We are confronted with a situation where the continuation of the Speaker is challenged."
Sanjay Raut speaks to the media on ED summons
Raut says, "If I get the notice, I will respond to that. To stop Shiv Sena, poeple will come together against Maharashtra and create trouble for us. But even if you hang me, I won't go to Guwahati. I will stand by Balasaheb Thackeray's Shiv Sena. I won't run away, I will seek time as I have pre-planned things tomorrow."
In SC, Singhvi put forward, "If Nabam Rebia case is applied generically, it will be disastrously. Forget this case. If I want to defect, and hobnob with the opponents, and prior to going, I send a one line notice to Speaker saying he has no authority."
To which, Justice Kant says, "If one defector issues such a notice, and the Speaker knows that he enjoys the majority of the house, he will reject the notice and proceed."
Singhvi submits, "In this case, press reports are rampant that these MLAs sent from an unverified email, and the Speaker rejected the no-confidence motion. That has not been challenged."
Justice Kant adds to this, "Can th speaker to whom notice has been served for his removal, can he himself decide the notice? My brother has a question."
Justice Pardiwala was quoted as saying by Live Law, "You have now been called upon to make us understand as to why the principle in Rebia should not be made applicable. If we want to ignore Nabam Rebia, prima facie we have to take the view that Article 212 was ignored or not considered in Nabam. Your entire edifice of argument is Article 212, are we clear."
Singhvi: "I see Justice Pardiwala's point that Nabam Rebia has not considered Article 212...disruptions in Singhvi's video."
Justice Kant tells Adv Singhvi that the constitution bench judgment applies to the facts of the case, while Singhvi argues that the Deputy Speaker has taken on record the 'unverified letter' and rejected it and that has to be challenged.Â
Citing Nabam Rebia, Justice Kant asked, "Can the Speaker be a judge in his own cause and reject the notice as invalid?"
According to Live Law, to this, Singhvi replies, "On 20th these MLAs went to Surat, on 21st they are supposed to have written this mail, on 22nd Speaker recieved this notice, and we are nowhere near 14 days....disturbances in Singhvi's video."
Justice Kant adds, "In all fairness, let the Deputy Speaker file the documents on record so that we're not confined with documents of only one side."
When Singhvi reads para 5 of the given notice, Justice Kant says, "14 days is the time for Speaker to put up the notice before the house. Here the MLAs have served notice calling upon him to put the resolution under Article 179."
Dhavan argues that the Speaker has rejected the notice questioning its authenticity. He says, "It was not sent from the registered email. It was not sent to the legislative office. Deputy Speaker acts in a judicial capacity. If somebody dashes off a letter, not to the registered office, the Speaker is..."
Justice Kant asks, "Did the Speaker ascertain from members if they have sent it? An affidavit may have to be filed." To which Dhavan answers that they have filed an affidavit.
Justice Kant: "If there is no valid notice, there's no question of 14 days"
This statement comes after Dhavan argued that in Nabam Rebia, the 14 days had elapsed, which is an important aspect. "A fly by night notice will not do. A notice sent by Vishal Acharya will not do. What is the notice and when does the period start...it is a serious matter," he added.
Solicitor General intervenes when Justice Kant asks Dhavan to file a comprehensive affidavit. Kamat tells the bench that there is 'preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition'. To which Justice Kant tells him that they have not given up on that objection.
Kamat refers to the SC order in Karnataka MLAs case to say that the SC disapproved the petitioners in that case "leapfrogging" to the SC bypassing HC.Â
He reads from the decision, "A party challenging disqualification is required to first approach the High Court." Justice Kant answer, "We are aware of that. As of now, there is no disqualification." Kamat goes on to argue about the alleged letter head that came from an unverified mail.
He said, "There is no question of calling a special session just because of this bogey of no-confidence. There are Rules and the legislative rules do not allow."
"To express no-confidence on Chief Minister, no reason is to be given. But as far as Speaker is concerned, please see Article 179, the word used is "removal". For "removal" reasons have to be given. Members can't merely say they have no confidence. It is only on charge."
The two-judges bench issues notice on Shinde's petition
Rajeev Dhavan accepts notice on behalf of the Deputy Speaker and adv Singhvi for Shiv Sena's new group leader Ajay Chaudhary and Sunil Prabhu. Solicitor General accepts notice for the Centre, as per Live Law.
Bench orders, "The counter affidavits if any be filed within 5 days. Rejoinder thereto be filed within 3 days thereafter. List the matter for hearing on July 11."
