After hearing all parties concerned for nine days, the Supreme Court handed down a 141-page judgment on the Maharashtra political imbroglio. The Constitution Bench came to nine conclusions:
●The correctness of the decision in Nabam Rebia is referred to a larger bench of seven judges.
●This court cannot ordinarily adjudicate petitions for disqualification under the Tenth Schedule in the first instance. There are no extraordinary circumstances in the instant case that warrant the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court to adjudicate disqualification petitions. The Speaker must decide disqualification petitions within a reasonable period.
●An MLA has the right to participate in the proceedings of the House regardless of the pendency of any petitions for disqualification. The validity of the proceedings of the House in the interregnum is not subject to the outcome of the disqualification petitions.
●The political party and not the legislature party appoints the whip and the leader of the party in the House. Further, the direction to vote in a particular manner or to abstain from voting is issued by the political party and not the legislature party. The decision of the speaker as communicated by the deputy secretary to the Maharashtra legislative assembly dated July 3, 2022, is contrary to law. The speaker shall recognise the whip and the leader who are duly authorised by the Shiv Sena political party with reference to the provisions of the party constitution, after conducting an enquiry in this regard and in keeping with the principals discussed in the judgement.
●The speaker and the ECI (Election Commission of India) are empowered to concurrently adjudicate on the petitions before them under the Tenth Schedule and under paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order respectively.
●While adjudicating petitions under paragraph 15 of the Symbols Order, the ECI may apply a test that is best suited to the facts and circumstances of the case before it;
●The effect of the deletion of paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule is that the defence of ‘split’ is no longer available to members facing disqualification proceedings. The speaker would prima facie determine who the political party is for the purpose of adjudicating disqualification petitions under paragraph 2(1) of the Tenth Schedule, where two or more factions claim to be that political party.
●The governor is not justified in calling upon Mr Thackeray to prove his majority on the floor of the House because he did not have reasons based on objective material before him to reach the conclusion that Mr Thackeray had lost the confidence of the House. However, the status quo ante cannot be restored because Mr Thackeray did not face the floor test and tendered his resignation.
●The governor was justified in inviting Mr Shinde to form the government.
