NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday scheduled choice on referring to a seven-judge bench the concern of whether a speaker facing notification for his elimination can be allowed to choose disqualification petitions against MLAs throughout a political flux akin to last years occasions in Maharashtra when Eknath Shinde-led rebel Sena legislators outmanoeuvred the Uddhav Thackeray faction to oust the MVA government with BJPs help.The Thackeray faction had initially submitted petitions with the deputy speaker, who was officiating as the speaker in the lack of a regular one, looking for disqualification of 16 MLAs, consisting of Shinde.

The rebel Sena faction pre-empted the relocation by sending out a notification for removal of the deputy speaker, who then got restrained to disqualify them on the basis of the SCs 2016 judgment in the Nabam Rebia case.Though the tussle in between the Thackeray faction and the Shinde-led group has ended, they have actually soldiered on in turning it into a fight over the powers of the speaker, engaging distinguished senior supporters to take a divergent view on reference of the Rebia judgment (Thackeray faction supporting it and Shinde group opposing it) to a seven-judge bench.In the Rebia case, including defections in Arunchal Pradesh, the peak court had held that a no-confidence movement against the speaker would act as a restraint on his power to disqualify MLAs for violation of the Anti-Defection Act.A constitution bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justices M R Shah, Krishna Murari, Hima Kohli and P S Narasimha heard arguments from both sides for three days prior to reserving its decision, while attaching equivalent value to the effects of either keeping intact the Rebia ruling or examining it.For the Shinde faction, senior supporter Mahesh Jethmalani stated the Rebia judgment rightly limited a speaker facing notification for his elimination from deciding disqualification petitions versus MLAs as if he did so, he would be changing the composition of the assembly by disqualifying those opposed to the CM.Senior advocate Maninder Singh, supporting Jethmalani, stated if the Constitution mandated the speaker not to administer over the House throughout the movement for his elimination to keep impartiality of the Chair, the exact same impartiality should be given significance to rule out his bias while choosing disqualification pleas versus MLAs.

After all he is capable of cutting short a chosen members period and thrust fresh elections on a constituency, he said.Thackeray faction counsel Kapil Sibal and A M Singhvi said the Constitution never ever imagined restricting the speakers power when defiance of party whip by the rebel group was apparent and disqualification was a clear possibility under the anti-defection law.

If the SC wishes to protect political morality and prevent repeating of Maharashtra-like events in the future, the Rebia judgment must be reassessed, they said.The bench said the arguments have actually thrown light on 2 sets of repercussions and both appear grim for the polity.

The bench stated that to address a constitutional concern, the court required a factual basis of the case to appreciate a political situation tossing up such problems.

In the case in hand, the (deputy) speaker developed the issue by offering just two days to the MLAs to react to the disqualification petition (the rebel Sena MLAs then were holed up in Guwahati).

The SC on June 27 asked the speaker to provide time till July 12 for them to react.

Meanwhile, the guv called for a flooring test, which the CM did not face and resigned (on June 29).

If the CM had actually taken the trust vote (on June 30), the MLAs voting versus the party might have been identified and proceeded against under the anti-defection law.

However that eventuality was prevented by the resignation, the bench stated.