The Supreme Court of India has commenced a pivotal hearing to determine whether legal challenges seeking the disqualification of Maharashtra legislators under the Tenth Schedule become legally infructuous following the expiration of the state’s legislative assembly term. During the proceedings, the bench presided over by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, alongside Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, interrogated the threshold question of whether the court retains the jurisdiction to provide substantive relief in matters concerning an assembly that has completed its constitutional tenure .

The issue was brought to the forefront by Senior Advocate Dhruv Mehta , representing the faction led by Eknath Shinde. In his submissions, Mehta argued that the petitions filed by the Uddhav Thackeray faction, which seek the disqualification of specific legislators for alleged acts of defection , lack legal viability now that the 14th Maharashtra Legislative Assembly has concluded its five-year term. Under Article 172 of the Constitution , once the term of an assembly expires, the individuals previously serving as members cease to hold that capacity. Consequently, the legal mechanism of disqualification —which essentially serves to strip an active member of their seat—cannot be applied to a house that is no longer in session.

"Mehta submitted that the respondents have ceased to be members of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly upon expiry of its term under Article 172 of the Constitution . Consequently, the Court could no longer grant substantive relief disqualifying them from membership of that Assembly," the counsel stated before the bench. This stance presents a significant procedural hurdle for the Thackeray faction, which has consistently maintained that the alleged defections warrant a retrospective judicial declaration .

The Conflict Over Legislative Membership The core of the dispute stems from a petition filed by Sunil Prabhu, a member of the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) faction. The petition challenges the decision of the Maharashtra Speaker, who had declined to disqualify MLAs from the Eknath Shinde-led faction. The Thackeray faction argues that the acts of the MLAs in question constituted a violation of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution , which deals with disqualification on the grounds of defection .

The Thackeray faction contends that even if the assembly term has ended, the legal repercussions of the actions taken by the MLAs during their tenure should be addressed by the judiciary. They argue that a declaration of disqualification would serve as a formal recognition of the illegality of the defection , which they claim had a ripple effect on the legislative majority relied upon by the Election Commission of India (ECI) when it recognized the Eknath Shinde faction as the legitimate representative of the Shiv Sena . By successfully challenging the validity of the defection , the Thackeray camp seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the ECI's decision to grant the 'bow and arrow' symbol to the Shinde-led faction.

Expanding Scope of the Challenge Beyond the immediate question of disqualification , the proceedings before the Supreme Court have highlighted the intersection between legislative procedural law and administrative actions taken by national bodies. The court is currently considering a separate, consolidated petition filed by Uddhav Thackeray that specifically contests the decision of the ECI to recognize the Shinde faction as the official Shiv Sena .

The Thackeray faction’s legal strategy relies on a theory of " relation back ," suggesting that if the disqualification of the Shinde faction MLAs were held to be valid at the time the events occurred, the subsequent political developments—including the ECI’s award of the party symbol—would be rendered fundamentally flawed. The Shinde faction’s opposition to this, framed as a plea of " infructuousness ," suggests that the court should avoid entering into academic exercises when the primary subject of the litigation—the membership of the 14th Assembly—no longer exists.

For legal observers, the case serves as a critical test of how the apex court handles the limitations of the anti- defection law when caught between the passage of time and the need for constitutional accountability. The court’s eventual ruling on whether the expiry of an assembly term terminates the judicial oversight of internal party disputes will set a significant precedent for future litigation involving the Tenth Schedule.

The Path Forward The bench, in its engagement with the parties, remains focused on whether any practical relief can be granted to the petitioners at this stage. The arguments presented on Monday highlighted the complexities of applying constitutional remedies to a landscape that has shifted significantly since the initial petitions were filed. The ECI's decision, which granted the party name and symbol to the Eknath Shinde group, remains a contentious element that complicates the resolution of the disqualification issue.

As the arguments continue, the court is expected to deliberate on whether the " mootness " of the disqualification plea necessarily drains the life out of the challenge regarding the ECI’s decision. While the Shinde faction insists that the expiration of the legislative term effectively terminates the litigation, the Thackeray faction remains adamant that the court must address the underlying questions of institutional and party integrity.

With no immediate ruling issued, the matter remains pending before the Supreme Court. The court’s next set of directives will clarify if the proceedings will continue on the merits of the Tenth Schedule violations or if the legal arguments regarding the expiry of the assembly’s term will result in the petitions being dismissed. For now, the parties await further directions as the judiciary weighs the impact of electoral cycles on the administration of constitutional justice.