Supreme Court on Uddhav vs Eknath: A major development was a fresh petition by Eknath Shinde, leader of the rebel Shiv Sena faction, alleging that there is a threat to the lives of the rebel MLAs.
As the power struggle in the ranks of Shiv Sena reached the Supreme Court today, top legal minds of the country debated in a legal battle that would decide the future of the Uddhav Thackeray government in Maharashtra.
Supreme Court on Uddhav vs Eknath: A major development was a fresh petition by rebel army faction leader Eknath Shinde, alleging that there is a threat to the lives of the rebel MLAs currently posted in Guwahati. Mr Shinde referred to Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut’s remarks about “dead bodies”. The party MP clarified that he was speaking about the “dead conscience” of the rebels.
The Supreme Court asked the rebels’ lawyer why they had not approached the Bombay High Court earlier. To this, advocate NK Kaul replied that the homes and properties of the rebels were being threatened, and the situation was not conducive for them to pursue their rights in Bombay.
Supreme Court on Uddhav vs Eknath: Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Shiv Sena leadership, said the Shinde camp did not give any reason why they did not approach the High Court earlier. Referring to the previous decisions of the Supreme Court, he said that the Deputy Speaker has the right to decide on the disqualification notices of the rebel MLAs. He said that judicial review cannot take place when proceedings are pending in the assembly.
Responding to the rebels’ argument that Deputy Speaker Narhari Jirwal cannot decide on disqualification notices of MLAs when a no-confidence vote is pending against them, their counsel Rajeev Dhavan said the no-confidence motion was dismissed as it was a Was sent via unverified email address.
Responding to this argument, Justice Surya Kant asked, “If the Vice-Chairman is saying that he is rejecting the motion which seeks to remove him, then the question is whether the Vice-Chairman can be a judge of his court?”