Sena Vs Sena | Didn't Set Timeline for Speaker ‘Out of Respect’ of Constitutional Authority: Justice Murari

Maharashtra remains to be fiery ring of political wrestling and the Uddhav Thackrey’s Shiv Sena camp has left no stone unturned to re-claim the legendary ‘bow and arrow’ symbol back. In yet another attempt, they knocked on the doors of the Supreme Court again.

The new petition filed by the Thackrey camp has alleged “inaction” by the Maharashtra Assembly Speaker over the pending disqualification petitions against the 16 delinquent lawmakers who were from the Eknath Shinde faction.

Speaking about this development, Justice (retd.) Krishna Murari, who was a part of the bench which delivered the verdict in the Sena vs Sena battle, said the Apex Court didn’t set a timeline for the Speaker to decide the disqualification petitions out of respect for another constitutional authority.

“What political decisions have happened post our judgment have nothing to do with the judgment. The judgment is only confined to the question raised,” he said.

But then, everything went on the fact that since the then CM didn’t face the floor test and resigned, so there was no alternative available with Court, he added.

“One Constitutional authority shall not normally encroach upon another’s but, it is equally important that the two must have mutual respect for each other. And, out of that respect, the Bench thought it fit to not set a time limit,” said Justice Murari.

“The other authority (Maharashtra Assembly Speaker) ought to have taken up the matter and decided it, however, you cannot technically call it to be a violation of the judgment,” he added.

While commenting upon the dynamic turn of events in Maharashtra politics post the verdict and the recent ‘Pawar Play’, the former Apex Court judge said, “What political decisions have happened post our judgment have nothing to do with the judgment. The judgment is only confined to the question raised.”

Justice Murari was part of the five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, which held that the Uddhav Thackeray government cannot be restored in Maharashtra since he resigned as chief minister and did not face the floor test.

Pronouncing its verdict on cross-petitions filed by Thackeray and Shinde factions, the Constitution Bench said the SC need not rule on the disqualification proceedings of 16 MLAs, leaving the task to the Speaker of the Maharashtra Assembly.