D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, M. R. SHAH, KRISHNA MURARI, HIMA KOHLI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Subhash Desai – Appellant
Versus
Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra – Respondent
What is the scope of the Supreme Court's power to decide disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule at the first instance? What is the proper forum and sequence for adjudicating disqualification petitions versus proceedings under the Symbols Order (Paragraph 15) and floor- testing/governor’s actions? How does the deletion of Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule affect the availability of the ‘split’ defence and the role of the Speaker in determining the political party for disqualification purposes?
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background on maharashtra government changes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. overview of reliefs sought in writ petitions. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 3. reference to a larger bench is warranted. (Para 32) |
| 4. arguments on disqualification petitions and governor's exercise of power. (Para 40 , 41 , 170 , 182) |
| 5. conclusions reached by the court. (Para 206 , 207 , 208) |
DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI.
1. The Writ Petitions instituted before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution arise from the political imbroglio in the State Legislature of Maharashtra. A coalition consisting of the Shiv Sena, the Nationalist Congress Party, 1[“NCP”] the Indian National Congress, 2 [“INC”] and certain independent Members of the Legislative Assembly3[“MLA”] formed the government in the State of Maharashtra with Mr. Uddhav Thackeray of the Shiv Sena as the Chief Minister. Certain events transpired in mid-2022 which led to the formation of a new government by a coalition consisting of a faction of the Shiv Sena (which claimed to the “real” Shiv Sena), the Bharatiya J
D. Sanjeevayya v. Election Tribunal
Delhi Admn. v. Gurdip Singh Uban
Indore Development Authority v. Manohar Lal (2020) 8 SCC 129 [Para 41]
Justice KS Puttaswamy v. Union of India (Aadhar 5J)
Kshetrimayum Biren Singh v. Hon’ble Speaker
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1 [Para 112]
Mayawati v. Markandeya Chand (1998) 7 SCC 517 [Para 40]
Nabam Rebia & Bamang Felix v. Deputy Speaker
Pradeep S Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka
Pratap Gouda Patil v. State of Karnataka (2019) 7 SCC 463 [Para 43]
Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker
Rajendra Singh Rana v. Swami Prasad Maurya
Ramdas Athawale v. Union of India
Rameshwar Prasad v. Union of India (2006) 2 SCC 1 [Para 40]
Rojer Mathew v. South Indian Bank Ltd.
Sadiq Ali v. Election Commission of India (1972) 4 SCC 664 [Para 42]
Shivraj Singh Chouhan v. Union of India (2020) 17 SCC 1 [Para 44]
Shrimanth Balasaheb Patil v. Speaker, Karnataka Legislative Assembly
Speaker, Haryana Vidhan Sabha v. Kuldeep Bishnoi
SR Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1 [Para 41]
Taxi Owners United Transport v. State Transport Authority (Orissa)
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.