Is Maha speaker's Sena ruling contrary to past verdict, asks SC
Supreme Court on Thursday verbally observed that the decision of Maharashtra speaker Rahul Narwekar using the test of legislative majority to declare Eknath Shinde's faction as the real Shiv Sena could be contrary to the court's judgment in May last year.
«He (the speaker) says which faction is the real political party is discernible from the legislative majority which existed when the rival factions emerged. Is it not contrary to the judgment?» a bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud remarked verbally, referring to paragraph 144 of the speaker's order.
«The whole submission is contrary to the judgment of our court,» the bench added.
The observation came during the hearing of a plea by the Uddhav Thackeray faction, challenging the speaker's refusal to disqualify members belonging to the Eknath Shinde-led faction.
Appearing on behalf of the Thackeray faction, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi emphasised the distinction between legislative majority and organisational majority post defection. Singhvi argued that the apex court's May 20213 judgment had established that legislative majority post defection would not necessarily equate to the real majority.
In response, senior advocate Harish Salve, representing the Shinde faction, questioned the authenticity of documents, specifically the resolution of June 2022, which marked a significant turning point in the factional struggle. In June last year, the Shinde faction and a group of Sena MLAs rebelled against the then chief minister Uddhav
