Supreme Court refuses to immediately refer Nabam Rebia ruling to 7-judge Bench
Satya Prakash
New Delhi, February 17
The Supreme Court on Friday refused to make an immediate reference to a seven-judge Bench for reconsideration of its 2016 verdict in the Nabam Rebia case which restrained a Speaker, facing proceedings for his removal, from deciding petitions seeking disqualification of MLAs.
A five-judge Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud, however, said if the Nabam Rebia judgment should be referred to a larger Bench could be decided only along with merits of the issues arising out of the Maharashtra political crisis being considered by it.
The Bench — which also included Justice MR Shah, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice PS Narasimha — said the question of referring the Nabam Rebia verdict to the seven-judge Bench could not be decided in an abstract manner, isolated and divorced from facts of the Maharashtra case.
The Bench would now resume the hearing on legal issues arising out of the 2022 Maharashtra political crisis on February 21.
In the Nabam Rebia case, the top court in 2016 had ruled that a Speaker could not decide disqualification petitions under the anti-defection law if a notice for his removal was pending.
The Uddhav Thackeray faction of the Shiv Sena has questioned the correctness of the ruling while the rival Shiv Sena group led by Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde maintained that the case was rightly decided and the issue should not be referred to a larger Bench.
The 2016 verdict had helped the rebel MLAs led by Shinde. But the Thackeray faction had sought their disqualification even while a notice of the Shinde group for the removal of Maharashtra Assembly Deputy Speaker Narhari Sitaram Zirwal, a Thackeray loyalist, was pending before the House.
Contending that the constitutional issues arising out of the June 2022 Maharashtra political crisis were not merely academic, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing the Uddhav Thackeray faction, said on Thursday that such issues would repeatedly arise when elected governments were toppled.
“This is not about today. This is about tomorrow. This issue will arise time and again. Elected governments will be toppled. No democracy in the world allows this to happen. So please don’t say this is academic. I beg of you. Do not allow the Tenth Schedule to topple an elected government. It is not just a narrow interpretation,” Sibal had told the Bench.
However, on behalf of the Shinde faction, senior counsel Mahesh Jethmalani had defended the Nabam Rebia verdict, saying it was the correct law and there was no reason to refer it to a larger Bench.
Another senior counsel, Maninder Singh, representing the Shinde group, said the majority of Shiv Sena MLAs wanted an appropriate change in the leadership for proceeding further with the original ideology and policies of the party.
