The verdict has put Eknath Shinde's job at stake.
The Supreme Court today will give an important verdict on last year's Shiv Sena mutiny, which resulted in rebel leader Eknath Shinde becoming the Chief Minister of Maharashtra.
The Supreme Court will decide whether Mr Shinde and 15 other MLS should be disqualified from revolting against then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray. The verdict has put Eknath Shinde's job at stake.
Here are the LIVE updates in this big story:
Get NDTV UpdatesTurn on notifications to receive alerts as this story develops.
- Even if it is assumed that MLAs wanted to leave the government... it was only dissatisfaction portrayed... floor test cannot be used as a medium to solve a intra party difference or inter party differences. There is a difference within party not supporting government and members being unhappy. Governor cannot use power not given to him... Governor is not entitled to enter political arena and play a role in intra party to inter party dispute. He cannot act on the basis that some members want to leave the Shiv Sena
- This cannot mean that they had withdrawn support from the floor of the house. Nothing shows members withdrew support and communication showed it disagreed with some policy decision of the Udhhav thackeray government.. whether there would be deliberation .. or will merge with another party was unclear.. thus Governor was wrong to conlcude that Uddhav Thackeray had lost majority
- To hold that the ECI is barred from deciding symbols order will be like staying proceedings indefinitely before the ECI and time for spreaker to decide will be uncertain... ECI has superintendence and control over election process and cannot be stopped from performing constitutional duty over a long period of time.
- We deal with Sadik Ali case and disqualification proceedings before speaker cannot be stayed with proceeding before the ECI. If disqualification is decided pending decision of ECI and decison of ECI will be retrospective and it will be contrary to law.
- When there are 2 whips appointed by 2 or more political parties and speaker has to ascertain the same... if the speaker or govt averts no confidence motion the governor will be justified to act without aid and advice. Now on governors role: among 34 mlas who signed the resolution a few were also ministers and governor concluded that members want to leave the political party... the governor has no objectve material on the basis of which he could doubt the objective of the incumbent govt and dissatisfaction of some members is not enough to call the floor test and he must use objective criteria and not use subjective satisfaction
Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud on questions referred to larger bench
- Having referred the matter to a larger bench. So this is now referred. Coming to merits of the case now
- The house of people or legislative assemblies of states is elected by the people and coalition is formed if no single party forms the halfway mark
- Legislative procedures serve objectives of having deliberations in house leading to better outcomes... these safeguard constitutional values. Article 212 cannot be interpreted to put all procedural irreugularities beyong judicial review.. to hold that legislature party appoints the whip will be like to severe the umbilical chord... this is not the system as evisaged by the constitution. 10th schedule will be rendered otiose.. courts cannot be excluded by article 212 to examine action of speaker in recognising the whip
- The speaker on taking cognisance of the statement by Mr Shinde did not undertake to identify who was the whip and he should have undertaken an enquiry. and decision to appoint mr gogawale as chief whip was illegal since whip can be appointed only by the legislative political party
- Although parties may have addressed the court on applicability of nabam rebia it cannot be accepted since the earlier order did not rely on nabam rebia
- We are of the view that decision in nabam rebia should be referred to a larger bench
- We direct the case to be referred to a larger bench since these issues were not decided in nabam rebia: whether temporary disablement of speaker can be misused by the speakers and whether a constitutional hiatus will be ensued due to temporary disablement of speaker
Sena vs Sena Case: Ahead Of Supreme Court Verdict, Sanjay Raut's Jibe At "Group Of Traitors"
Ahead of the Supreme Court's verdict on last year's Maharashtra political crisis, Shiv Sena Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray (UBT) leader Sanjay Raut today said that if 16 MLAs of Eknath Shinde-led Shiv Sena including Chief Minister Eknath Shinde are disqualified, "then the group of traitors will be finished". Read more
If the 16 MLAs including Chief Minister Eknath Shinde are disqualified today, then this group of traitors will be finished: Sanjay Raut, Uddhav Thackeray faction leader
A Constitution Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud will deliver the verdict. It is a unanimous decision by the bench. The judgment is authored by CJI.
The bench will assemble after 10.30 AM.
The bench will assemble after 10.30 AM.
- Maharashtra Chief Minister Eknath Shinde's job and his government will be on the line today when the Supreme Court announces an all-important verdict on last year's Shiv Sena mutiny.
- The Supreme Court will decide whether Mr Shinde and 15 other MLAs should be disqualified for revolting against then Chief Minister Uddhav Thackeray in June last year.
- Mr Thackeray had asked the top court to step in after Mr Shinde, backed by the opposition BJP, split the Shiv Sena and led most of the MLAs to form a new government.
- If Mr Shinde is disqualified, he will have to resign as Maharashtra Chief Minister and his government will be disbanded.
Watch Live News:
