Maharashtra Speaker’s decision conflicts with court ruling on factions

Contact Counsellor

CategoryPolity

Last Updated16/01/2024

Maharashtra Speaker discerned from the “legislative majority” held by the faction led by Maharashtra Chief Minister that they were the “real” Shiv Sena.

However, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, deciding the Shinde versus Uddhav Thackeray dispute, had directed in a May 2023 judgment
that the “Speaker must not base their decision as to which group constitutes the political party on a blind appreciation of which group possesses a majority in the Legislative Assembly”.
The Constitution (Ninety-first Amendment) Act, 2003 deleted the provision of ‘split’ in Paragraph 3 of the Tenth Schedule.
The inevitable consequence of the deletion of Paragraph 3 from the Tenth Schedule is that the defense of a split is no longer available to members who face disqualification proceedings.
To hold otherwise would be to permit the entry of the defense of ‘split’ in the Tenth Schedule through the back door.
This is impermissible and would render the deletion of Paragraph 3 meaningless.

The anti-defection law punishes individual Members of Parliament (MPs)/Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) for leaving one party for another.
Parliament added it to the Constitution as the Tenth Schedule in 1985 in order to bring stability to governments by discouraging legislators from changing parties.
The Tenth Schedule - popularly known as the Anti-Defection Act - was included in the Constitution via the 52nd Amendment Act, 1985.
It sets the provisions for the disqualification of elected members on the grounds of defection to another political party.
It was a response to the toppling of multiple state governments by party-hopping MLAs after the general elections of 1967.