'Man who can't find 20 MLAs...': Eknath Shinde's Sena faction slams Uddhav Thackeray in SC

In a Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday before a three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and composed of justices Krishan Murari and Hima Kohli, Eknath Shinde's counsel contended that, "Are we in such a hopeless situation that a man who cannot even find 20 MLAs to support him has to be brought back to power by the courts?"

Also, READ: Delhi HC stays guidelines prohibiting levying of service charge by restaurants, next hearing November 25

There are several constitutional matters that need to be answered about Maharashtra's political situation, according to the Supreme Court, which added that it may send the subject to a bigger bench for further consideration after hearing comprehensive arguments.

As part of the Maharashtra case, the Supreme Court instructed the state's legislative secretary to keep the documents secure and the parties involved in framing issues they could bring in front of the court for a response.

A bigger constitutional court may be needed to address some of the concerns in Maharashtra's political turmoil, according to the bench. The Supreme Court set a new hearing date of August 1 in this case. Maharashtra's Speaker was also told by the Supreme Court not to handle disqualification petitions till further notice.

Kapil Sibal, the senior advocate for the Thackeray camp, said that democracy is in jeopardy in any state if the government could be overthrown notwithstanding the bar under the Tenth Schedule and added that the sole safeguard is for merger under para 4 of the Tenth Schedule. In accordance with Paragraph 2 of the Tenth Schedule, he claimed that 40 Shiv Sena members had forfeited their party membership as a result of their actions. It was recommended by the Uddhav side to call the legislative assembly records before the courtroom.

The Chief Justice said: "I strongly feel some of these issues may require a larger bench".

Lawyer Harish Salve, representing the Eknath Shinde group, says disqualification procedures have put an end to internal party democracy and if a majority of party members believe another guy should lead, what is wrong with that? Salve said: "Are we in such a hopeless situation that a man who cannot even find 20 MLAs to support him has to be brought back to power by the courts?"

During the hearing, the bench said that one of the questions that would need a ruling is whether a minority within a parliamentary party may disqualify the majority. The Supreme Court has asked Shinde to respond by July 29.

On July 11, the Supreme Court provided temporary relief to MLAs from the Uddhav Thackeray camp by instructing Maharashtra Assembly Speaker Rahul Narwekar not to continue with the disqualification petition filed by the Shinde group for breaking party whip during the confidence vote and election of the Speaker.

Initially, the Shinde group challenged the disqualification procedures begun by the then-Deputy Speaker of the Assembly in the top Court.

According to a vacation bench of India's highest court, dissident MLAs now have till July 12 to respond in writing to the deputy speaker's disqualification notice. When it comes to disqualifying MPs from both parties, both sides have accused each other of violating party whips on July 3 and 4.

(With inputs from IANS)