Constitutional issues require consideration, if necessary, by a larger bench: CJI observes in Sena versus Sena petitions

The bench, comprising Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli, observed that status quo on any decision by the assembly Speaker over disqualification petitions will operate till then, and posted the case for hearing on August 1, while making it clear that it was not ordering the constitution of a larger bench at the moment. All parties have been asked to make submissions on issues which required the court’s consideration. The bench also told the assembly secretary to keep all relevant records in safe custody.

Appearing on behalf of the Uddhav Thackery faction, senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that if the instant case was allowed, then any elected government could be toppled. He urged the court to summon assembly records. “What happens to the verdict of the people? The whole 10th schedule has been turned topsy turvy and used to instigate defection,” Sibal contended.

Referring to the appointment of a new CM, Sibal argued “it is a mockery of the whole democratic process and systems of governance”. The governor of Maharashtra should not have administered the oath of office of chief minister to Eknath Shinde when proceedings were pending before the SC. Appearing on behalf of former Sena chief whip Sunil Prabhu, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi contended the court could order interim disqualification.

Countering their claims, senior advocate Harish Salve, who appeared for chief minister Eknath Shinde’s faction, argued that disqualification proceedings did not apply in the case.